Court of Appeals hears arguments on the U.S. Department of Education's Title IX rules that provide protections for LGBTQ+ students

NEW ORLEANS, La. (KALB) – On November 4the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments for and against a permanent injunction approving new Title IX rules from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)the State of Louisiana and legal counsel representing the Rapides Parish School Board (RPSB).

This hearing follows a lawsuit originally submitted Through RPSBlabeling the adoption of the new Title IX rules and regulations as an “illegitimate rewrite” by the Biden administration that “(Force) schools across the country to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children.”

The DO defines Title IX as a civil rights law that aims to protect people from discrimination on the basis of their sex in schools, educational programs, and activities. A federal rule that applies to all schools, local, and state agencies that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education.

The Title IX rules governing the pending lawsuit expanded the scope of biological sex protections to include individuals who identify with a sex different from their biological sex, particularly those in LGBTQ+ communities.

“The federal government can take enforcement action if schools don’t comply, which is why Rapides and the state of Louisiana and many others had to file a lawsuit in this case, or they could lose millions or even billions of dollars. dollars in federal education funding”

Following the filing of RPSB’s lawsuit, a court issued an injunction officially freezing the effects of the new Title IX rules in states such as Mississippi, Montana, Idaho and Louisiana while the lawsuits were still ongoing.

During the Nov. 4 hearing, representatives from the Department of Education argued that privacy concerns regarding the inclusion of transgender people in single-sex spaces such as bathrooms are “warranted” but that they would exist regardless of the newly imposed rule.

“Privacy concerns existed long before this rule in locker rooms, bathrooms, showers, and so on, and these privacy concerns exist even if you don’t consider the presence of transgender people in those spaces”

Defendants further argued that while it remains a potential issue, a resolution would remain in the hands of the school administration, citing the fact that schools can provide multiple avenues for remediation at the administrative level and has been successful among schools across the country, a claim that the plaintiffs allege. argued was not true.

When confronted with the issue of including transgender people in sex-segregated classes, such as gym, the defense argued that the new rules would not conflict since schools would be able to segregate students based on ability (such as weight class or age) instead of biological sex. a claim that Judge Jerry Smith disagreed with.

“That seems really stupid to me,” Smith said. “You’re telling us that if there’s one biological male in gym class, and they’re playing… let’s say volleyball or basketball… what do you do? Can you get the really big, tough girls to play with him on that team? Is that the plan?”

“We do not create equal opportunities if we ignore biological differences. Everyone knows there are biological differences that matter.”

Arguments by Autumn Patterson, a Louisiana state representative, coincided with statements by Smith, in which he argued that mixing biological sexes through ability-based discrimination would conflict with Congress’s intentions when Title IX was originally created was created and could potentially pose a higher risk to biological women.

“In Title IX, Congress recognized that there was value in still having single-sex activities like Boy Scouts, like sororities”

“Inclusion of biological males in women’s classes may pose a risk of injury or humiliation”

Focusing on the discussion about gender-inclusive private facilities such as showers or locker rooms, Patterson said, “Sex is not a stereotype, (…) sex is the relevant requirement in determining who gets access.”

She also claims that the DOE failed to consider the potential fiscal costs to schools when drafting the new rules, and argues that schools would be mandated to build gender-neutral bathrooms. By failing to provide facilities to students who do not identify with a gendered gender, schools would be in violation of Title IX anti-discrimination rules, a claim that DOE says is unenforceable.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released this statement after the hearing:

The lawsuit is still ongoing.

Click here report a typo. Please include the title of the article in your email.