NEW ORLEANS, LA (KALB) – On November 4THE 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments for and against a permanent injunction to adopt new Title IX regulations from the U.S. Department of Education (DEER)state of Lousiana and legal counsel representing the Rapides Parish School Board (RPSB).

This hearing comes as a result of a lawsuit originally submitted of RPSBdeclaring the Biden administration’s adoption of new Title IX rules and regulations an “illegal rewrite” that would “(force) schools across the country to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children.”

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

Title IX rules related to the ongoing lawsuit have expanded the protections afforded to biological sexes to include individuals who identify with a gender different from their biological sex, particularly those of LGBTQ+ communities.

“The federal government can bring enforcement actions if schools don’t comply, and that’s why Rapides and the state of Louisiana and many others had to file a lawsuit in this case because otherwise they could lose millions or even billions of dollars in federal funding for education”

Following the RPSB’s filing of the lawsuit, a court issued an injunction, officially freezing the effects of the new Title IX rules in states like Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, and Louisiana while the litigation remained ongoing.

At the Nov. 4 hearing, Department of Education representatives argued that privacy concerns about including trans people in gender-segregated areas, such as bathrooms, are “legitimate” but would exist regardless of the newly imposed rule.

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

The defendants also argued that while a potential problem remains, a solution would rest in the hands of a school’s administration, citing that schools can offer multiple avenues of administrative redress and it has been successful in schools across the country, the plaintiffs claim. argued was not true.

When confronted with the subject of including trans people in sex-segregated classes, such as physical education, the defense argued that the new rules would not be violated because schools could separate students based on ability (such as weight class or age ) instead of biological sex, a claim that Judge Jerry Smith took issue with.

“I think it’s really silly,” Smith said. “You mean if there’s a biological male who’s in PE class and playing…say volleyball or basketball…what do you do? Do you make the really big, burly girls play on that team with him? Is that the plan?”

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

Arguments from Autumn Patterson, a Louisiana state representative, echoed Smith’s statements, which say mixing the biological sexes through ability-based discrimination would go against the intent of Congress when Title IX was originally created and could create a greater risk for biological women.

“In Title IX, Congress recognized that it was useful to continue to have single-sex activities such as Boy Scouts, such as sororities”

“Inclusion of biological males in female classes could create risk of injury or humiliation”

When focusing on the discussion of gender-inclusive private facilities such as showers or changing rooms, Patterson said, “Gender is not a stereotype, (…) gender is the relevant requirement for determining who has access.”

Additionally, she claims the DOE failed to recognize the potential fiscal costs to schools when it created the new rules, saying schools would be mandated to build gender-neutral bathrooms. By failing to provide facilities to students who do not identify with their gender, the schools would be violating Title IX’s anti-discrimination rules, a claim the DOE contends is unenforceable.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill made this statement following the hearing:

The process remains ongoing.

Click here to report a typo. Please provide the article title in your email.

Copyright 2024 KALB. All rights reserved.