Wyoming’s top education official Megan Degenfelder is applauding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday ruling against a new Biden administration transgender bathroom rule.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to let the Biden administration's new Title IX rules, which address transgender accommodations like bathroom policies in schools, go into effect against several states suing the government.
Every justice agreed the rules may be proclaimed unlawful in court, and may harm those states.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a victory to some states suing the federal government over its new rules about transgender accommodation in schools by refusing to let the rules go into effect during the lawsuits against them.
Though the decision wasn't made in relation to Wyoming’s concurrent lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s federal Department of Education, it sends a clear message to those handling it.
Wyoming’s top education official, who sued the federal department along with Gov. Mark Gordon in May, rejoiced Saturday at the news.
“I am glad our nation’s highest court affirmed what we already knew — that the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Title IX rule change is a clear violation of federal law,” wrote Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder in a statement to Cowboy State Daily. “Our efforts are working, but we can’t stop the fight here in Wyoming.
“In June, I proudly stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and made it clear — I will never back down in the fight to protect our girls.”
The new rules are blocked from going into effect in Wyoming, and in 25 other states, and in several schools that have sued.
The Rules
Released in April, the new U.S. Department of Education rules reinterpret the federal Title IX education laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity under its definition of discrimination.
In other words, while Title IX was passed to bar sex discrimination in schools, the new rules would expand that ban, potentially outlawing school rules keeping transgender students out of bathrooms and locker rooms that don’t match their sex.
Every justice on the U.S. Supreme Court believes the offended states deserve a break from three of the new rules’ provisions at least while the case is ongoing, according to the high court’s Friday order.
The suing states and school boards call the new rules unlawful, saying it unlawfully redefines sex discrimination, violates students’ and employees’ rights to bodily privacy and safety, and that its definition of hostile environment harassment doesn’t match federal law and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Those provisions are problematic, Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed in a partial dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Jackson-Brown joined.
By saying the states are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief from those provisions, the nine justices are essentially saying that the suing states are likely to win their case against the rules, and they’d suffer harm if those provisions were allowed to go into effect.
But the majority of the court allowed all provisions of the rules remain blocked during the states’ lawsuit challenging them. The justices’ reasoning says the rules are complex and intertwined, and it’s not fair to expect schools to sift through and apply only those they believe are constitutional or lawful.
The dissent disagreed, saying there are good parts in the rules that should be allowed to go into effect.
“Consider some of the unchallenged provisions,” reads the dissent. “The Rule requires schools to provide ‘reasonable modifications’ to pregnant students, including but not limited to ‘breaks during class… to attend to health needs associated with pregnancy or related conditions.’”
Other provisions prevent schools from asking prospective employees about their marital status; mandate that schools prohibit staff and students from retaliating against students who file Title IX complaints, and provides a procedure for handling complaints.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
