Skip to content Skip to search

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/
Donate to our newsroom

Menu

Topics

  • Abortion
  • Politics
  • Education
  • LGBTQ+
  • Caregiving
  • Environment & Climate
  • Business & Economy
View all topics

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

  • Latest Stories
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Ways to Give
  • Search
  • Contact
Donate
Home

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

Topics

  • Abortion
  • Politics
  • Education
  • LGBTQ+
  • Caregiving
  • Environment & Climate
  • Business & Economy
View all topics

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

  • Latest Stories
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Ways to Give
  • Search
  • Contact

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Become a member

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

LGBTQ+

Block on Biden’s Title IX rule is part of broader attack on key LGBTQ+ rights case, experts say

More legal battles to limit Bostock v. Clayton County are expected in conservative courts, experts say.

rainbow flag and american flag outside the supreme court (scotus) in anticipation of bostock hearing
Bostock v. Clayton County gave LGBTQ+ people protections against workplace discrimination. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Orion Rummler

LGBTQ+ Reporter

Published

2022-08-01 05:00
5:00
August 1, 2022
am

Republish this story

Share

  • Bluesky
  • Facebook
  • Email

Republish this story

Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court case that found LGBTQ+ people are protected against workplace discrimination, has quickly become a crucial support in legal fights for LGBTQ+ rights since it was decided in 2020. The decision has been cited in at least 250 other cases, according to the ACLU, and it serves as the backbone of the Biden administration’s Title IX interpretation, as well as support for interpretations of the Violence Against Women Act, the Affordable Care Act and protections added to the Fair Housing Act. 

The role of Bostock in these cases also makes it a potential target for legal pushback.

Last month, a federal judge in Tennessee issued an injunction preemptively blocking the Biden administration from enforcing its guidance to expand LGBTQ+ protections under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in schools. While the ruling only applies to the 20 states that joined the lawsuit — and experts say the suit’s argument flies in the face of legal precedent — it is one recent example of court battles that aim to limit Bostock’s reach, several experts tell The 19th. 

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

LGBTQ+ legal observers expect more battles in front of conservative courts to attempt to limit the scope of Bostock.

“We’re going to have to fight hard against that,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). “We’re going to have to litigate this issue all over the country.” Hopefully most courts will agree that the reasoning in Bostock applies in schools and to trans and LGBTQ+ students, he said. 

Minter said he found the Tennessee case, which was decided by U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley, to be troubling.

“I think this decision is completely wrong, poorly reasoned, incorrect,” Minter said. “But it is a warning sign about how aggressively we’re going to have to fight because our opponents are fighting no holds barred to strip every right and protection from LGBTQ+ people, including transgender students.”

LGBTQ+ experts say that since the Supreme Court clearly laid the groundwork in Bostock for its protections to apply in other scenarios — due in part to the traditional legal link between Title VII and Title IX, as well as the court’s explanation of how sex discrimination must be applied to discrimination against gay or trans people — it is concerning and baffling that a judge would side with the plaintiffs in the Tennessee lawsuit. 

  • More from The 19th
    A pride flag is displayed outside a home
  • Judge preemptively blocks LGBTQ+ protections in Title IX and the workplace
  • How the country’s first openly gay senator is asking GOP colleagues to back marriage equality
  • A new bill aims to protect same-sex marriage. What would it do if Obergefell falls?

“By claiming that Bostock doesn’t protect LGBTQ+ people, this judge has sent a very public and very wrong message about what our nondiscrimination laws do for us, and that’s a very real harm,” said Chris Erchull, staff attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). 

Aaron Ridings, deputy executive director for public policy and research at GLSEN, which advocates for LGBTQ+ students, said that the Tennessee injunction is one part of broader attacks on LGBTQ+ rights that ultimately harm students and which, he fears, means they’re more likely to be exposed to homophobia, transphobia, or racism at school. 

Atchley’s decision creates a fraught situation for LGBTQ+ people in many of the states that joined the lawsuit. Tennessee and its fellow plaintiff states argued that the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX keeps them from enacting or enforcing anti-trans laws — even though not all of them have managed to pass anti-trans bills into law, said Ezra Ishmael Young, who teaches constitutional law at Cornell Law School.

“They’re trying to carve out space so they could have these laws in the future. And they’re saying until we get the political power to pass these laws, which they might never have, we don’t want the federal government doing what it’s doing. That makes no damn sense and that’s destructive,” Young said. 

The immediate legal effects of the Title IX injunction are unclear, especially since the latest guidance from the White House has yet to be formalized — and the DOJ has not yet signaled its response. Until then, some experts say the Education Department should still be able to keep investigating anti-trans harassment in schools, and LGBTQ+ people can still sue their employers over discrimination.

In June, the Education Department’s office for civil rights found that a California school district had violated Title IX due to its failure to respond to a transgender student being repeatedly harassed by another student. The investigation led to the school district agreeing to update its harassment policies in a voluntary resolution agreement. 

This new injunction should not prevent the Education Department from continuing to take such actions in states that are involved in the Tennessee lawsuit, Young and Erchull said. The agency has yet to respond about how it will continue such efforts following the judge’s order. 

“It’s really hard to see what it is that the court’s enjoining here or what will change as a result of it,” Erchull said, especially since LGBTQ+ people can still sue their employer if they believe they were discriminated against. Schools can also still be sued by students or their parents, Minter said. 

In the meantime, more lawsuits challenging Title IX’s LGBTQ+ protections have been filed. Last week, 22 states — again led by Tennessee’s attorney general — sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture for requiring states receiving federal nutrition assistance money to investigate discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as tasking them to update nondiscrimination policies. The administration issued the guidance based on Biden’s Title IX interpretation, as supported by Bostock. 

Also last week, Florida’s education commissioner sent a memo urging the state’s superintendents and school boards to ignore the Biden administration’s Title IX interpretation, including that guidance from the USDA. As part of his reasoning, Florida education commissioner Manny Diaz cites the Tennessee lawsuit that just won a preliminary injunction.

The agency’s Title IX interpretation still has a long way to go before it becomes an enforceable rule, as it is still going through public comment. Even after the rule is finalized, the grounds to challenge it would be limited, Young said. 

Whether Atchley’s injunction over the new Title IX guidance will be appealed by the Justice Department and reach the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is also an open question — and LGBTQ+ experts differ on how they would expect the court to respond. Through a spokesperson, the DOJ declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

Sign up for more news and context delivered to your inbox, daily

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Preview of the daily newsletter from The 19th

Anya Marino, clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic, said she would be “very surprised” to see the court ignore previous decisions made outside of Bostock that affirmed that discrimination on the basis of gender noncomformity does constitute sex stereotyping and violates either Title VII or Title IX. 

“But it’s even more astounding to me that a court would create such a narrow carveout regarding the rules imparted by the Supreme Court in Bostock,” she said, referring to the Tennessee judge’s decision. 

Anthony Michael Kreis, who teaches constitutional law and employment discrimination at the Georgia State University College of Law, said that while the outcome of the Tennessee judge’s ruling if appealed to the Sixth Circuit is unclear, he is concerned about the current hostility against LGBTQ+ rights. 

“I think we’re dealing with a much more hostile environment generally against LGBTQ rights, which is not helpful for the litigation environment,” Kreis said. That hostility, seen in anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ bills and potentially after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, has left him feeling more pessimistic than he has in a long time.  

“That makes me very uneasy, but whether that translates into more hostile rulings from federal judges, I think is a different question, and one that remains to be seen, but is certainly not an environment that I would want to litigate in,” he said. 

Republish this story

Share

  • Bluesky
  • Facebook
  • Email

Recommended for you

A pride flag is displayed outside a home
Judge preemptively blocks LGBTQ+ protections in Title IX and the workplace
The 19th Explains: What did Title IX changes just do for trans students?
President Biden steps towards a table and chair as he prepares to sign an executive order in the Rose Garden of the White House.
Students and advocates ‘frustrated’ with Biden administration’s slow response to finalize Title IX changes
Supreme Court to decide whether it’s unconstitutional to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth

The 19th News(letter)

News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday.

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting...

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Become a member

Explore more coverage from The 19th
Abortion Politics Education LGBTQ+ Caregiving
View all topics

Our newsroom's Spring Member Drive is here!

Learn more about membership.

  • Transparency
    • About
    • Team
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Community Guidelines
  • Newsroom
    • Latest Stories
    • 19th News Network
    • Podcast
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Fellowships
  • Newsletters
    • Daily
    • Weekly
    • The Amendment
    • Event Invites
  • Support
    • Ways to Give
    • Sponsorship
    • Republishing
    • Volunteer

The 19th is a reader-supported nonprofit news organization. Our stories are free to republish with these guidelines.