The Biden administration’s approach to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, has been subject to scrutiny and debate. Two recent rulings from Kansas and Florida provide insight into how the administration’s policies are being interpreted and challenged in the courts.
Kansas Ruling: Reinterpreting Title IX
In State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education (D KS, July 2, 2024), the court addressed the Department of Education’s (DoE) Final Rule, which aimed to expand the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include gender identity and sexual orientation. This interpretation was rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Key Points from the Kansas Ruling:
Historical Context of Title IX: The court emphasized that Title IX’s original intent, when enacted in 1972, was to address discrimination based on biological sex, not gender identity or sexual orientation. The ruling pointed out that the term “sex” was understood to mean biological distinctions between males and females.
DOE’s Interpretation and Expansion: The DoE’s Final Rule sought to align Title IX with the broader protections established under Title VII by including gender identity and sexual orientation. However, the court found that this reinterpretation exceeded the DoE’s statutory authority. It argued that the expansion to include gender identity and sexual orientation was inconsistent with the historical and textual context of Title IX.
Spending Clause and Federalism Concerns: The Kansas ruling also highlighted concerns under the Spending Clause, asserting that the new conditions imposed by the Final Rule on recipients of federal funds were not unambiguously stated in Title IX. This ambiguity violated the principles of federalism by imposing unexpected conditions on states accepting federal funds.
Florida Ruling: Contradiction with Title VII and Bostock
State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (MD FL, July 3, 2024) similarly scrutinized the DoE’s efforts to apply the principles of the Bostock decision to Title IX.
Key Points from the Florida Ruling:
Distinguishing Title VII from Title IX: The court acknowledged that while Bostock applied to Title VII concerning employment discrimination, Title IX’s context and application are different. Title IX includes specific exemptions and focuses on educational settings, which complicates a direct application of Bostock‘s logic.
Rejection of Gender Identity Inclusion: Following the precedent set by the Eleventh Circuit in Adams v. School Board of St. John’s County, the Florida court reaffirmed that Title IX does not encompass gender identity within its prohibition of sex discrimination. This decision emphasized the statutory context of Title IX, which permits sex-specific facilities and programs, a nuance not addressed in Bostock.
Consistency and Timing of Interpretations: The court criticized the shifting interpretations of Title IX over time, noting that the DoE’s current stance deviates from historical understandings. It underscored the importance of maintaining a consistent interpretation of statutes as understood at the time of their enactment.
Implications for the Biden Administration
These rulings reflect significant judicial pushback against the Biden administration’s attempts to broaden Title IX’s scope to include gender identity and sexual orientation. The courts’ insistence on adhering to the historical and textual interpretation of Title IX underscores a broader legal and ideological conflict over the boundaries of administrative authority and statutory interpretation.
The administration’s efforts, framed as aligning educational protections with modern understandings of gender and sexuality, face substantial legal hurdles.
The Kansas and Florida rulings indicate that some states have a judicial preference for a more conservative interpretation of Title IX, one that limits its application to traditional definitions of sex. This presents a significant obstacle for the Biden administration’s broader civil rights agenda, suggesting that substantial legislative changes, rather than administrative reinterpretations, may be necessary to achieve their policy goals.
