In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 on Friday to block a key component of the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed amendments to Title IX. This ruling came in response to an emergency request from the administration, which sought to implement new rules designed to safeguard transgender students from discrimination. Opponents of the amendments argued that they could potentially allow men to compete in women’s sports. The Court’s decision means that the new regulations will not be enforced while ongoing legal challenges at the state level continue.

The Biden administration had requested that certain changes to the Title IX rules be implemented by August 1, arguing that the existing court orders were overly broad. However, Republican-led states and conservative groups contended that the proposed changes were too complex and would place an undue burden on schools. They claimed that educational institutions would face significant challenges in understanding how to apply the rules without their key provisions, revising their policies, and training staff—all within a week. "Schools would have to work out how the rule functions without its key provisions, amend their policies, and train their staff accordingly—all by next week—and then do it all again after judicial review," said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers last month, according to USA Today.

The Biden administration has emphasised that the new regulation is not designed to decide eligibility for participation in women’s sports. However, experts told Fox News in June that the rule might inadvertently increase the number of biological men competing in women’s sports. In April, the administration implemented significant changes to Title IX, explicitly extending protections to LGBTQ+ students. The revised rule clarified that Title IX’s prohibition on "sex" discrimination now encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and "pregnancy or related conditions."

On August 1, a new rule took effect that broadened the definition of sex discrimination to encompass issues related to a person's gender identity. However, courts in 10 Republican-controlled states temporarily blocked the implementation of this rule. In response, the Biden administration petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and determine whether the rule should be enforced.

Justice Neil Gorsuch and the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court dissented from the majority’s decision. They argued that the less contentious aspects of the new rules should be allowed to go into effect. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasised that the court’s decision to maintain the temporary bans prevents the government from enforcing the entire rule, including provisions unrelated to the specific issues raised by the challengers. She criticised the bans as “too broad.”

The court’s unsigned order stated, "On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the Government has not provided this Court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule," according to Fox News.

Image source: AP