The ruling by Texas District Judge Reed O’Connor finds that the defendants failed to follow the proper constitutional procedure in interpreting Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination, in order to advance “an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context of Title IX.”
Mr. Paxton said the order protects Texas public schools from the administration’s attempt to redefine Title IX to include gender ideology guidelines, which would have allowed men to use women’s bathrooms, permitted men to play in women’s sports, and required teachers and students to use pronouns that don’t align with a student’s sex.
“Threatening to withhold education funding by forcing states to accept ‘transgender’ policies that put women in danger was plainly illegal,” Mr. Paxton said. “Texas has prevailed on behalf of the entire nation.”
Mr. Paxton sued the U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland a year ago to prevent the use of Title IX to deny federal funding to schools that don’t comply with federal interpretations of gender identity and sexual orientation.
After filing the initial lawsuit, Mr. Paxton said in a June 2023 press release that the DOE’s interpretation was an arbitrary leap to allow for sexual orientation and gender identity.
“Texas is challenging this blatant attempt to misuse federal regulatory power to force K-12 schools, colleges, and universities in our state to accept and implement transgender ideology—in violation of state law—by misusing the Title IX statute to threaten the withholding of federal education funds,” Mr. Paxton said, adding that this move could deny Texas schools up to $6 billion in federal funding.
Mr. Paxton’s lawsuit stated the DOE relied on Bostock v. Clayton County, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that holds Title VII protects employees against discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality.
“As numerous courts have recognized, a school’s policy or actions that treat gay, lesbian, or transgender students differently from other students may cause harm,” the DOE said.
According to the lawsuit, the DOE believed its interpretation of Title IX logically extends from the language of Title VII, and it began to implement enforcement of Title IX that would have prohibited federal funding in Texas schools if they didn’t comply.
“Thus, to allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite Title IX in a way that shockingly transforms American education and usurps a major question from Congress. That is not how our democratic system functions,” he stated.
Judge O’Connor granted Mr. Paxton’s motion for a permanent injunction against the defendants’ enforcement of their Title IX interpretation.
In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment, a DOE spokesperson provided this statement:
“Every student deserves the right to feel safe in school. The Department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, which were crafted following a rigorous process to give complete effect to the Title IX statutory guarantee that no person experiences sex discrimination in federally-funded education.”
The spokesperson added that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right for LGBT people to work “without fear of harassment, exclusion, and discrimination.”
This ruling, the spokesperson said, also applies to LGBT students.
“This Texas court decision ruled on the application of three guidance documents that the U.S. Department of Education issued three years ago, in June 2021, to the State of Texas, which brought this lawsuit; those documents had already been enjoined in some other States by another court, in a case currently on appeal,” the spokesperson said. “Schools are still obligated to comply with the final Title IX regulations by August 1 and we look forward to working with school communities all across the country to ensure the Title IX guarantee of nondiscrimination in school is every student’s experience.”
