In a significant legal development, a federal judge has overturned a Biden administration policy that expanded the definition of sex under Title IX to include "gender identity."
The ruling, by Judge Louis Guirola Jr., stated that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had overstepped its authority by interpreting Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and implementing regulations concerning gender identity and 'gender affirming care.'
According to The Post Millennial, the case was brought against HHS officials from the Biden era by fifteen states, including Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia in 2024.
The states argued that the HHS's rule exceeded the departments statutory authority because it "provides that sex discrimination includes gender-identity discrimination," and "it unlawfully regulates the practice of medicine."
Judge Guirola's ruling hinged on the interpretation of the term "sex" as it was understood when Title IX was enacted in 1972. He cited definitions from Blacks Law Dictionary and Websters Dictionary from the 1960s and 70s, which defined sex as the biological differences between males and females.
The judge argued that the HHS had declined to define 'gender identity' or 'transgender status' in its Rule, leaving the terms open to various interpretations.
The ruling also referenced the Supreme Courts decision in Bostock v Clayton County, where it was determined that an employer violates Title VII "when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex." However, Judge Guirola noted that the Supreme Court's ruling was specific to employment and did not extend to issues such as sex-segregated bathrooms.
The judge further pointed out that the Bostock ruling was considered during the Supreme Courts deliberations on the U.S. v Skrmetti case. He stated that the decision in this case was relevant because the Rule requires healthcare providers to provide 'gender-affirming care that the covered entity would provide to an individual for other purposes if the denial or limitation is based on an individuals sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded.
In his ruling, Judge Guirola argued that the denial of healthcare based on gender identity does not necessarily constitute sex discrimination. He gave the example of a medical provider who performs mastectomies for those diagnosed with breast cancer not being allowed under the rule to refuse giving mastectomies for "gender dysphoria."
He stated that the refusal in this case is not based on sex, but on the patients cancer-related diagnosis, or lack thereof.
The judge concluded that while Title VII, which was under consideration in Bostock, states that "an individual employees sex is not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees," Title IX allows education programs to separate students based on sex.
He stated, "Furthermore, the Bostock Courts Title VII analysis does not support a finding that denial of healthcare based on gender identity necessarily constitutes sex discrimination. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to summary judgment."
This ruling represents a significant pushback against the Biden administration's efforts to expand the definition of sex under Title IX to include gender identity. It underscores the ongoing legal and cultural debates surrounding gender identity and the rights of transgender individuals in the United States.
The decision also highlights the tension between federal and state authorities over the interpretation and application of civil rights laws, a tension that is likely to continue to play out in the courts.
Login