US appeals court won't revive Biden LGBT protections for students in four states
By Brendan Pierson
Aug 23 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court has refused to let the Biden administration enforce a new federal rule protecting LGBT students from discrimination in schools and colleges based on gender identity in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, which had all sued to challenge the measure.
A 2-1 panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the four states on Thursday in finding that the administration had overstepped its authority by interpreting Title IX, a federal law against sex discrimination in education, to cover gender identity.
Attorneys general for the states hailed the decision as a victory, saying it will protect girls.
"We will continue to fight for young girls and women to protect their opportunities and safety," Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody wrote on X.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education said that the department stands by the rule and "will continue to fight for every student."
The decision leaves the anti-discrimination rule, which took effect on Aug. 1, blocked in 26 states by a patchwork of federal court orders in place during ongoing legal challenges by Republican-led states. The U.S. Supreme Court last week rebuffed a bid by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to lift those orders in some states.
A federal judge last month ruled against the four southeastern states, the only court decision so far upholding the rule, but the 11th Circuit immediately put that order on hold when the states appealed. Thursday's ruling will remain in place while the court considers the states' appeal more fully.
States suing over the rule have said that it forces schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms, and faculty to use pronouns for transgender students, that correspond to their gender identities. The plaintiffs have argued that rule goes far beyond Title IX's ban on sex discrimination.
The administration has countered that the ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity, pointing to a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision finding that employers cannot discriminate against transgender people under Title VII, an employment discrimination law.
But the majority in Thursday's decision said that Title IX was different from Title VII. It said that the 11th Circuit had already decided that Title IX did not cover gender identity in December 2022, when it upheld a Florida school policy forbidding transgender students from using the bathroom corresponding to their self-identified gender.
Circuit Judges Elizabeth Branch and Robert Luck, both appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump, joined the unsigned decision. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, an appointee of Democrat Bill Clinton, dissented, saying the states were not entitled to an injunction because they had not explained how enforcing the rule would harm them.
The case is State of Alabama et al v. U.S. Secretary of Education, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-12444.
For Alabama: Solicitor General Edmund LaCour
For Florida: Solicitor General Henry Whitaker
For Georgia: Solicitor General Stephen Petrany
For South Carolina: Assistant Deputy Solicitor General Joseph Spate
For the Department of Education: David Peters of the U.S. Department of Justice
Read more:
Biden administration rule protecting LGBT students blocked in 26 states
US Supreme Court won't allow LGBT student protection in certain states
US judge upholds protections for LGBTQ students in first win for Biden administration
U.S. appeals court upholds Florida high school's transgender bathroom ban
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York)
</body></html>Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
