Skip to main content

U.S. Department of Education v. State of Louisiana

Description:  The Biden administration’s unlawful rewrite of Title IX will force schools—including the 42 located in Rapides Parish, Louisiana—to impose widespread harms on young people and deny free speech on campus.


Monday, Sep 30, 2024

NEW ORLEANS – Women’s groups, athletes, 22 states, and many education advocates have filed friend-of-the-court briefs asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to halt the Biden-Harris administration’s unlawful attempt to redefine “sex” to include “gender identity” in Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics.

In the case State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a Louisiana school board serving more than 20,000 students. The Department of Education’s fundamental and unconstitutional rewriting of federal law would force schools to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children—including the very children it claims to help. Schools will be required to allow males who identify as female to enter girls’ private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, and showers; to participate in girls’ physical education classes; and—despite logically inconsistent disclaimers saying otherwise—to play on girls’ sports teams.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, undermines fairness, and threatens student safety and privacy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Natalie Thompson. “The Rapides Parish School Board and schools and teachers across the country are right to stand against the administration’s adoption of extreme gender ideology, which would have devastating consequences for students, teachers, administrators, and families. We commend the many athletes, teachers, and women’s advocates who have joined us in urging the 5th Circuit to continue restraining the administration’s illegal efforts to rewrite Title IX.”

“All told, the Department cannot point to any statutory authority supporting its dramatic rewrite of Title IX, let alone the clear authority required to weigh in on the major questions the Final Rule attempts to answer,” the amicus brief led by the state of Arkansas and joined by 21 other states explains. “The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘sex’ discrimination is illegal on its face and should remain enjoined. Such a ruling would merely maintain the status quo that has existed since Title IX’s enactment in 1972 based on the universal understanding that ‘sex’ means biological sex, not gender identity.”

Women and girls deserve personal privacy, and that is “[not] because of bigotry; it is a natural instinct rooted in biological realities,” the brief filed by Independent Women’s Law Center, Women’s Declaration International USA, and Concerned Women for America states. “The first of those realities is that males alone have the biological capability to impregnate women. Combine that with other objective facts—men are, on average, larger, stronger, and more violent than women—and it is not hard to see why women are naturally nervous when made to expose their bodies around males.”

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the administration’s request to partially reinstate its illegal rewrite of Title IX. The Supreme Court agreed with the 5th Circuit’s decision to continue blocking the unlawful rule in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

# # #


Friend-of-the-court briefs filed with U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit



Commentary


Previous News Releases

Legal Documents


Related Resources

ABOUT Jonathan Scruggs

Jonathan Scruggs serves as senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy and the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom. In this role, he identifies new litigation opportunities and develops new strategies for protecting free speech and religious liberty in collaboration with the chief legal counsel and litigation team directors. As the leader for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Scruggs oversees the litigation team defending the rights of professionals and business owners to live out their faith as well as the litigation efforts to protect equal opportunities for women in athletics. Since joining ADF in 2006, Scruggs has worked on and prevailed in a variety of cases that protect the right of people to freely express their faith in their business, at school, and in the public square. He earned his J.D. at Harvard Law School and is admitted to practice in the states of Arizona and Tennessee. Scruggs is also admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal district and appellate courts.

ABOUT Natalie Thompson

Natalie D. Thompson serves as senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, where her practice in the regulatory litigation group focuses on federal administrative law’s impact on religious freedom and the sanctity of life. Before joining ADF, Thompson served as an assistant solicitor general in the office of the Texas attorney general. In that role, she represented the state and its officials on appeal in significant litigation matters, including defending constitutional challenges to Texas laws and claims against state officials. As an assistant solicitor general, Thompson presented oral argument in numerous cases, including 12 arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and eight before the Supreme Court of Texas. Before her government service, Thompson clerked for the Hon. Andrew S. Oldham of the 5th Circuit, the Hon. Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, and the Hon. Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Thompson graduated with honors from the University of Chicago Law School and received her BA magna cum laude from the University of Southern California. While a law student, she served on the executive board of the University of Chicago Law Review.