President Joe Biden’s controversial efforts to redefine Title IX by including gender identity in its protections against sex discrimination faced a significant setback Thursday. A federal court issued a nationwide injunction blocking the administration’s proposed changes, marking a major blow to Biden’s agenda and a victory for opponents advocating for the protection of women’s sports, privacy, and traditional interpretations of biological sex.
The case, State of Tennessee v. Miguel Cardona, was spearheaded by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and joined by attorneys general from Montana, Louisiana, Idaho, and Mississippi. AG Skrmetti celebrated the ruling as a “resounding victory for the protection of girls’ privacy in locker rooms and showers, and for the freedom to speak biologically accurate pronouns.”
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen echoed Skrmetti’s sentiments, declaring, “This is a big win for women’s rights. This decision will keep young women and girls protected from dangerous situations, just as Title IX has done for decades.”
The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, where Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee, delivered a sharp rebuke of the Biden administration’s policies.
In his ruling, Judge Reeves emphasized that Title IX’s original intent was to prevent sex-based discrimination, stating, “It is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female.” He further criticized the administration’s attempt to expand Title IX’s scope to include gender identity, asserting, “Expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”
The court’s injunction specifically blocked mandates requiring schools to:
- Allow biological males identifying as females to access women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.
- Compel staff and students to use preferred pronouns based on individual gender identities.
The court found these provisions inconsistent with Title IX’s original intent and a violation of students’ rights to privacy. “The Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity,” Reeves wrote. He argued that such a mandate “is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of educational protection for all students.”
This ruling aligns with a similar decision from June 2023, where U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty in Louisiana blocked Biden’s Title IX changes across six states, labeling the revisions an “abuse of power.” Doughty’s ruling underscored that the administration’s unilateral rewrite of Title IX violated the separation of powers, a recurring criticism of Biden’s policy approach.
Introduced in January 2021 as one of Biden’s earliest executive actions, the Title IX revisions aimed to redefine “sex discrimination” to include “gender identity.” These changes would have allowed biological males identifying as females to compete in women’s sports, use women’s facilities, and require school staff to use their chosen pronouns.
However, legal challenges from states and advocacy groups delayed the implementation of the policy, with Thursday’s nationwide injunction delivering a significant roadblock.
The court’s decision comes at a pivotal moment, coinciding with the incoming Trump administration. President-elect Donald Trump and his administration are expected to restore Title IX to its original interpretation, focusing on biological definitions of sex.
With the injunction in place, Biden’s policy will remain blocked, allowing the Trump administration to rescind the proposed rules without further legal obstacles.
The ruling reignites the ongoing debate over the limits of executive authority and the balance between individual rights and privacy in education. Advocates for Biden’s policy argue that including gender identity under Title IX ensures protections for transgender students. However, critics contend that such changes undermine the privacy, safety, and fairness for women and girls in sports and educational facilities.
Tennessee Attorney General Skrmetti framed the ruling as a broader cultural victory, stating, “This decision ensures that Title IX remains faithful to its purpose: protecting equal opportunities for women.”
Montana’s AG Knudsen highlighted the implications for women’s sports, saying, “Allowing biological males to compete in women’s athletics jeopardizes decades of progress for female athletes.”
As the legal battles continue, Thursday’s ruling represents a significant obstacle to Biden’s efforts to advance gender-related changes under Title IX. The decision ensures that the debate over gender identity, biological sex, and individual rights in education will remain a central battleground in America’s cultural and political landscape.
With the nationwide injunction in place, Biden’s policy is effectively stalled, leaving the next administration with the opportunity to reshape the future of Title IX. For now, the court’s ruling is a resounding affirmation of traditional interpretations of the law and a blow to the Biden administration’s progressive agenda.
