Original Epoch Times article By Bill Pan
Updated: 07/15/24
A federal judge has granted an injunction against the U.S. Department of Educationâs Title IX final rule for public colleges and schools across Texas.
Title IX is the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs or activities that receive federal funding. Among other changes, the final rule redefines sex-based harassment as including harassment based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The ruling makes Texas the 15th state where the revised Title IX regulations are blocked from taking effect. Texas officials have already instructed public colleges and Kâ12 schools in the state not to comply with the new rule, which is set to go into effect on Aug. 1.
In its lawsuit challenging the new rule, Texas argued that its public institutions would be forced to allow male students identifying as transgender into female-exclusive bathrooms and locker rooms. It also took issue with a provision it said would require public colleges to cover abortions in their student health insurance plans, as well as changes to how colleges handle allegations of sexual misconduct.
Judge Kacsmaryk agreed that the state would suffer irreparable injury if the Title IX regulations took effect.
âIn summary, the State of Texas and its political subdivisions are on a collision course with the Final Rule,â he wrote. âTexas can either (1) comply and violate State law, local policy, and many of its employeesâ rights of conscience or (2) reject the Final Rule and lose billions in federal funding for its Kâ12 and higher-education systems.â
In defense of the new rule, the Education Department pointed to the U.S. Supreme Courtâs 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, a case where a Georgia child welfare worker was fired after his employer learned he was gay.
In the 6â3 decision, the high court offered an expansive interpretation of Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination at the workplace, concluding that itâs unconstitutional for sexual orientation and gender identity to be considered as factors in employment decisions.
The Title IX changes are aligned with the reasoning behind Bostock, the department argued, since discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity ânecessarily involves consideration of a personâs sex,â even if the term âsex-based discriminationâ signifies only biological distinctions between male and female sexes.
Judge Kacsmaryk disagreed, saying that the Education Department âmisapplied Title VII to misread Title IX.â
âDefendants invoke [Bostock] to rationalize the Final Ruleâs inversion of the statutory text but do not adequately explain why that Title VII employment case controls this Title IX education case, which instead implicates womenâs athletics, safety, and sex-specific facilities in a different setting: schools, colleges, and universities,â he wrote.
The Education Department didnât respond by publication time to a request for comment.