In a recent Supreme Court decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch aligned with his liberal colleagues in dissenting from the majority's ruling on Title IX regulations.
The Court's 5-4 decision denied the Biden administration's request to block a lower court injunction on new Title IX rules, as reported by Newsweek.
The case revolves around the Department of Education's (DOE) new Title IX rules, which were finalized earlier this year and went into effect on August 1, 2024. These rules, in part, reversed a Trump-era interpretation that excluded gender identity and sexual orientation from Title IX protections.
Several Republican-led states filed lawsuits against these new regulations, resulting in lower federal courts temporarily blocking the entirety of the new rules in 26 states.
The Supreme Court's majority declined the DOE's emergency request to reinstate portions of the new rules unrelated to gender identity and sexual orientation. The majority stated they were not provided "a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts' interim conclusions."
Justice Gorsuch joined Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. They argued that while the gender identity and sexual orientation rules should be paused during appeals, the rest of the new rules should be allowed to resume.
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, stated, "I would grant most of the Government's stay requests and leave enjoined only its enforcement of the three challenged provisions. The lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the discrete harms alleged here."
The Court's decision does not indicate how it might rule on any of the new Title IX rules in the future, including the provisions regarding gender identity and sexual orientation. It merely allows the lower court injunctions to remain in place while the cases proceed through the appeals process.
A DOE spokesperson responded to the ruling, saying:
While we do not agree with this ruling, the Department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, and we will continue to defend those rules in the expedited litigation in the lower courts. The schools that are not enjoined within the 24 states are obligated to comply with the final 2024 Title IX regulations and we look forward to working with school communities all across the country to ensure the Title IX guarantee of nondiscrimination in school is every student's experience.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed the Court's decision, stating, "I am grateful that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that no part of the Biden administration's Title IX rule should go into effect while the case proceeds. This is a win for student privacy, free speech, and the rule of law."
On the other hand, civil rights organizations expressed disappointment with the ruling. Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project, criticized the use of lawsuits as "attacks on trans kids as a way to roll back other rights for women and girls."
Cathryn Oakley, the Human Rights Campaign's senior director of legal policy, stated:
It is disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth. Every young person deserves the opportunity to be able to access a public education without discrimination because of who they are.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to deny the Biden administration's request to partially lift injunctions on new Title IX rules has sparked debate. Justice Gorsuch's alignment with the liberal justices in dissent highlights the complexity of the issue. The ruling allows lower court injunctions to remain in place in 26 states while appeals proceed. Reactions to the decision have been mixed, with supporters praising it as a win for privacy and free speech, while critics argue it hinders civil rights protections for students.
