Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is spearheading a coalition that is standing against the Biden administration’s newly proposed Title IX rule.
The Department of Education under President Biden has recently proposed revisions to Title IX that aim to redefine the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” This move comes despite existing legal precedents that have shaped the interpretation of this important aspect of the law for decades.
According to Moody, Biden’s new Title IX rules undermine the protections that women have fought for over decades. She finds it absurd that young girls can now be legally compelled to undress in the presence of males, especially in spaces that are supposed to be safe, such as locker rooms. Additionally, she criticizes the possibility of young women being randomly assigned male roommates without any say in the matter, and the eligibility of biological men for women’s scholarships. Moody asserts that Florida will vigorously oppose Biden’s actions, as he seems to be disregarding the potential real-world consequences of his regulatory overhaul.
Title IX, which was put into effect in 1972, declares that no individual in the United States should be excluded from or discriminated against in any education program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance based on their sex.
Moody and the coalition highlight in their complaint that when the law was passed, it was widely understood that the term “sex” referred to biological sex. This understanding was supported by various indicators, and there was no doubt about it. It was clear that “sex” in Title IX only encompassed biological sex and did not include gender identity or sexual orientation.
The new rule acknowledges situations where sex discrimination is permitted, but interestingly, it does not include the provision regarding separate bathrooms and locker rooms as stated in 34 C.F.R. §106.33.
Female college students may also be compelled to share dorm rooms with biological males under these regulations.
The coalition acknowledges the absence by stating, “The Department claims that its regulation, which is not supported by a ‘statutory exception,’ is null and void. The Department also declines to adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Adams, which justifies the exclusion of transgender or nonbinary students from using facilities of the opposite sex as illegal. In essence, the rule invalidates §106.33 without formally rescinding it and declares that such exclusion is unlawful.”
The coalition asserts that the redefinition of ‘sex’ under 20 U.S.C. §1681 to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ in the challenged rule is unlawful. They argue that courts should interpret the words of a statute based on their ordinary meaning at the time the statute was enacted. According to the coalition, there is no evidence, and the Department does not provide any, to suggest that ‘sex’ referred to anything other than the biological distinctions between males and females during the enactment of Title IX.
According to the lawsuit, it would be logical to prioritize safety and fairness.
The court can declare that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. It can also vacate the rule and stay its effective date. Furthermore, the court can issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of the rule in the plaintiff states. The court has the discretion to grant any other relief that it deems just and proper.
The lawsuit filed by Attorney General Moody has gained support from the attorneys general of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Additionally, the Independent Women’s Law Center, the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First Inc. have also joined in support of the lawsuit.
Read More:
- Understanding the Legal Landscape of Pocket Knives in Vermont
- Insect Invasion: 5 Oregon Cities Combatting Bed Bug Onslaught