O’Connor
FORT WORTH, Texas - Though new leaders at the U.S. Department of Education aren't appealing a court ruling striking Biden-era gender policies in schools, nonprofits are trying to keep the case alive.
A May 21 deadline for appeal came and went without President Trump's DOE filing one, but the family justice group A Better Balance, which has vowed to fight the Trump Administration, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to let it intervene in order to overturn Texas federal judge Reed O'Connor's February ruling.
Also not allowed to intervene by O'Connor were the Victims Rights Law Center and a Jane Doe who wants the rule to stay in place so she can't be cross-examined by counsel for the student she accuses of raping and strangling her. They also filed appeals.
The hearing already took place, and the accused's advisor did not cross-examine her, leaving her unable to establish standing to intervene, O'Connor ruled.
O'Connor earlier this year granted judgment to the Carroll Independent School District's challenge of an April 2024 rule called "Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance."
That rule redefined "sex" in Title IX rules to include "gender identity," requiring schools to ignore the biological distinction between male and female in favor of "an individual's sense of their gender."
Lawyers representing CISD asserted that under the revised Title IX guidance, schools “will have to allow males who identify as female to enter girls’ private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, showers and – despite logically inconsistent disclaimers saying otherwise – to play on girls’ sports teams…[while] also [requiring] the school district to enforce policies restricting students’ and employees’ free-speech rights.”
Carroll Independent School District subsequently adopted a resolution denouncing the rule change, emphasizing that the rule could “jeopardize the safety and well-being of students.”
Judge O'Connor found the final rule was "contrary to the law, arbitrary and capricious."
"(E)xpanding the meaning of 'on the basis of sex' to include 'gender identity' turns Title IX on its head, and the Final Rule's new de-minimis harm standard is arbitrary in the truest sense of the word," he wrote.
Citing an earlier Kentucky ruling striking the rule, O'Connor added, "Because the distinction between male and female is at the heart of Title IX, 'throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless.'"
