You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
A federal judge shot down an effort Tuesday from four Southern states to immediately block the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule from taking effect, finding that Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina failed to show that they would be successful in their legal challenge.
The ruling from Judge Annemarie Carney Axon, appointed by former president Trump, paves the way for the regulations to be enforced in those four states beginning Thursday, when the rule takes effect nationwide. The states have already appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. More than 70 colleges in the four states don’t have to comply with the new regulations because of a court order in a separate case. Additionally, Florida governor Ron DeSantis told public colleges in his state earlier this year to not comply with the regulations.
Twenty-six Republican attorneys general have sued the Biden administration across seven lawsuits. So far, judges have issued five temporary injunctions blocking the Education Department from enforcing the regulations in 21 states. Axon, from the Northern District of Alabama, is the first judge so far to rule in favor of the Biden administration.
Throughout the 122-page opinion denying the motion for an injunction, Axon criticized the plaintiffs for failing to explain their arguments challenging the rule, not citing specific sections of the regulation and inaccurately characterizing other court opinions.
“The evidentiary record is sparse, and the legal arguments are conclusory and underdeveloped,” Axon wrote.
The new Title IX rule strengthens protections for LGBTQ+ students in part by clarifying that sex-based discrimination prohibited under the law includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It allows transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, which has been a sticking point with conservatives. The states have claimed that these provisions and others exceed the department’s authority and undermine the original intent of the law.
Axon wrote that in order to secure an injunction, as the states requested, the plaintiffs bore the burden of showing they could prevail on the merits of their arguments. They routinely failed to meet that standard, she determined.
“In short, although plaintiffs may dislike the department’s rules, they have failed to show a substantial likelihood of success in proving the department’s rulemaking was unreasonable or not reasonably explained,” the judge wrote.
