Inside the last-minute legal fight to stop Title IX from going into effect

A coalition of states has asked an appeals court to overturn an eleventh-hour decision allowing the Biden administration to implement its rules expanding the definition of Title IX to include gender identity by the end of the day Wednesday.

A lawsuit led by the state of Alabama has asked a federal appeals court to overturn a judge’s Tuesday decision to allow the Department of Education to enforce the controversial rule, which will go into effect on Thursday. That court decision is the first one permitting the Biden administration to implement the rule.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, as well as the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First, Inc., have asked the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to intervene before the rule’s Aug. 1 deadline.

In court filings, those states and organizations say that the legal system’s delayed response caused the last-minute action.

“Though briefing was complete on June 19 and oral argument was held on July 1, the district court did not rule until today, July 30, giving the plaintiffs (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and four associations who represent students) just hours to seek emergency relief,” the emergency motion for administrative injunction reads.

“Now that the district court has denied an injunction pending appeal, Plaintiffs will file a motion asking this Court for the same relief,” the plaintiffs said in a filing entered after 11 p.m. on Tuesday night. “But that motion could not be briefed, let alone considered and decided, before the rule goes into effect in less than 36 hours.”

The states and organizations said in the filing that the rule would require schools to let males use female restrooms, let males shower and undress in front of female students, let males box and wrestle with female students, let males share rooms with female students on overnight trips, punish those who use the wrong pronouns and punish those “who express ‘offensive’ views” on controversial topics.

“The Title IX rule not only immediately jeopardizes the rights and safety of students,” the plaintiff’s lawsuit reads. “But it also requires schools to digest the rest of the 423-page rule, update their policies, retrain their employees, figure out how to reconcile contrary state laws, and more. And the rule’s effective date is hours away.”

The Department of Education’s controversial rule changes were first announced in April this year, and the agency has fought in court for the rules to be enforced, citing the necessity of increased protections for transgender students in academic settings.

The Department’s response on Wednesday said that despite the plaintiff’s claims, the schools would not lose their funding immediately.

“Title IX sets out a comprehensive scheme for obtaining compliance that authorizes termination of funding only after an extensive process that includes express findings on the record, attempts to secure voluntary compliance, an opportunity for a hearing, notifications to Congress, and passage of a 30-day waiting period.

The Department of Education said if states are unprepared, they are to blame.

“The Rule’s effective date has been apparent to plaintiffs since April 2024. In the intervening three months, the status quo has always been that the Rule would go into effect and that plaintiffs would have to comply,” the Department of Education’s response reads. “If plaintiffs waited until [Tuesday] afternoon to begin their compliance efforts, that is an emergency entirely of their own making.”

The department argued that, at this point, an injunction would do more harm than good.

“On the other side of the ledger, a late-breaking change in the status quo will cause immediate and irreparable harms,” the department’s response reads. “Students and teachers throughout the plaintiff states have an interest in the many protections provided by the Rule – the vast majority of which plaintiffs do not challenge.”

“No one disputes that preventing sex discrimination in education – and ensuring that all students have full access to federally funded educational opportunities – serves a compelling public interest,” the Department’s Wednesday court filing reads.