On June 19, the Utah Legislature passed a resolution directing state entities to ignore the Biden administration’s new interpretation of Title IX, joining many other states in opposing the administration’s proposal to expand anti-discrimination protections.
These two resolutions HCR301 and HJR301claiming through “Legislative Survey Results” that the new regulations are “an overreach of federal executive power.”
The issue stems from a proposed interpretation rule released by the Biden administration in April that would expand the enforceability of Title IX of the Education Amendments. Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex”; Biden administration’s new rule interprets provision as prohibit Discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. opponent explain New rules from the Department of Education could force states to allow biological males to participate in women’s sports.
New rules to use 423 pages clarify a term 37 words It will take effect on August 1st.
But whatever will The bill’s entry into force has become increasingly controversial. With the passage of the recent resolution, Utah joins a growing number of states, including Texas, Louisianaand Arkansas— which officially ignores the Biden administration’s new Title IX rules. In addition, 26 state attorneys general File a lawsuit The opposition Ministry of Education questioned its explanation.
“We are a sovereign nation and don’t want the federal government telling us what to do,” Utah Rep. Trevor Lee (R-Layton) told reason When asked why they voted in favor of the resolution. “As a state, we have made decisions on these issues.”
Opponents of the law say the new rules are a misinterpretation of the statute and do not reflect the original lawmakers’ intent. “This is about how the executive branch has exceeded its constitutional authority by unilaterally changing the law, circumventing Congress and undermining due process,” Utah Sen. Curt Bramble (R-Provo) told reporters. reason.
The Biden administration claims Its new rules follow Supreme Court precedent Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)which determines Chapter VII Provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of “sex” – include at least some protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Department of Education’s new Title IX rules rely heavily on this precedent, citing bostock More than 60 times to justify its explanation.
But the court’s decision bostock As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the 6-3 majority, the question was intentionally narrow, encompassing only issues where “an employer fires someone simply because he is gay or transgender.” To be clear, the court did not attempt to resolve any issues beyond Title VII, including those raised by “other federal or state laws prohibiting sex discrimination” (such as Title IX).
This uncertainty about Supreme Court precedent led a federal judge in Kentucky to stay Biden administration’s new Title IX rules six states— Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia — because the new rule “violates the plain text of Title IX by redefining ‘sex’ to include gender identity” and is “arbitrary and capricious rule-making.”
The Kentucky case was decided on June 17, and the Biden administration is expected appeal.
On appeal, the government may argue bostockAlthough it focuses on Chapter 7, it logically extends to Chapter 9 because the two statutes are similar in structure and in both cases the dispute centers on the meaning of the word “sex” .
“[T]Ken M. Levy, a professor at Louisiana State University School of Law, said there is no principled reason to interpret the meaning of “sex” differently in the two statutes. reason. “bostock So it does effectively extend to Title IX, where the Department of Education correctly says that schools may not discriminate against gay and transgender students.
Douglas Laycock, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law, said states may counter that “Title IX raises more complex issues than Title VII, including the participation of transgender women in women’s sports, locker rooms and showers.” ” All of these factors make the case more complex than ever. bostock.
“I don’t know how the Supreme Court will approach this case,” Laycock added. “My guess is that they will say that Title IX applies to sexual orientation and gender identity, and then interpret Title IX to allow for some exceptions.”
