President Joe Biden’s controversial attempt to overhaul Title IX by including gender identity in its anti-discrimination provisions has been struck down by a federal court. The ruling, issued Thursday, places a nationwide injunction on Biden’s proposed changes, delivering a significant setback to his administration’s agenda and a victory for advocates of women’s sports and privacy.
The case, State of Tennessee v. Miguel Cardona, was initiated by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and joined by attorneys general from Montana, Louisiana, Idaho, and Mississippi. Skrmetti hailed the ruling as a pivotal moment for protecting women’s rights.
“This is a resounding victory for the protection of girls’ privacy in locker rooms and showers, and for the freedom to speak biologically accurate pronouns,” Skrmetti declared.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen echoed the sentiment, describing the decision as a “big win for women’s rights.” Knudsen emphasized that Title IX has protected women and girls from discrimination for decades, and this ruling ensures those protections remain intact.
The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, presided over by Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee. In a sharply worded opinion, Reeves criticized the Biden administration’s attempt to reinterpret Title IX’s definition of sex discrimination.
“It is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being male or female,” Reeves wrote. “Expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”
The court’s ruling specifically blocked provisions of the administration’s policy that:
- Mandated schools to allow biological males identifying as females to access women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.
- Required staff and students to use preferred pronouns based on individual gender identities.
Reeves underscored that these mandates conflicted with the original intent of Title IX and infringed on students’ rights to privacy. He wrote, “The Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity. This is inconsistent with Title IX and broader guarantees of privacy and educational protection.”
The ruling aligns with a June 2023 decision by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty in Louisiana, which blocked the implementation of Biden’s Title IX changes across six states. In that case, Judge Doughty labeled the revisions an “abuse of power” and highlighted the administration’s failure to respect the separation of powers.
Biden’s Title IX changes, introduced via executive order in January 2021, aimed to redefine “sex discrimination” to include “gender identity.” These changes would have required schools to allow biological males who identify as females to compete in women’s sports, use women’s facilities, and compel the use of chosen pronouns.
However, the policy has faced consistent legal challenges from states and advocacy groups, with courts repeatedly questioning its constitutionality and impact on privacy and fairness.
This ruling comes at a critical juncture as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office. The Trump administration is widely expected to restore Title IX to its original interpretation, reaffirming protections for women based on biological sex.
The court’s injunction effectively stalls Biden’s proposed changes, giving the next administration the opportunity to rescind them without further legal battles.
The decision underscores the ongoing national debate over gender identity, biological sex, and individual rights in education. Advocates of Biden’s policy argue it is a necessary step to ensure protections for transgender students. Conversely, opponents claim the changes erode privacy, safety, and fairness for women and girls.
Tennessee AG Skrmetti emphasized the cultural importance of the ruling, stating, “This decision ensures that Title IX remains faithful to its purpose: protecting equal opportunities for women.”
Montana AG Knudsen highlighted the impact on women’s sports, warning that allowing biological males to compete jeopardizes decades of progress for female athletes.
The ruling represents a significant blow to one of Biden’s key progressive policies. Critics have long argued that the administration’s attempt to unilaterally rewrite Title IX exceeded its authority. Judge Reeves’ opinion reinforced this critique, asserting that the administration’s interpretation was legally unsound and politically divisive.
With the injunction in place, Biden’s policy will remain blocked indefinitely. For opponents, this decision is a reaffirmation of traditional legal principles and a pushback against what they see as government overreach.
As the Biden administration grapples with this legal defeat, the broader battle over Title IX and gender policies will undoubtedly continue. The ruling ensures that these issues remain at the forefront of national discourse, with implications for education, privacy, and civil rights.
For now, the court’s decision reaffirms that Title IX will remain a battleground in the cultural and political conflicts shaping the nation’s future.
