FORT WORTH – Carroll Independent School District officials has moved for summary judgment in a dispute with the U.S. Department of Education over institution of revised Title IX guidelines from the Biden Administration.
The District first filed suit against the DOE, its Secretary Miguel Cardona, its Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 21.
The Biden Administration’s released new guidance in April to redefine “sex” in Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for female students in education and athletics.
On April 19, the administration announced it would redefine “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.”
Counsel representing CISD assert 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.”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled on July 11 to issue an injunction to halt the Biden Administration’s new Title IX guidance for the pendency of the instant case.
On Aug. 16, CISD then motioned for summary judgment dismissal of the case.
“In April 2024, the Department of Education sidestepped Congress and issued a sweeping new Title IX rule that tried to reshape America’s educational system to reflect the Department’s gender ideology. Since then, this Court rejected the Rule’s core logic by vacating the Department’s Title IX guidance documents; this Court and six others enjoined enforcement of the Rule; two appellate courts affirmed the scope of those injunctions; and three other courts rejected the Rule’s unlawful Title IX interpretation when applied to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act,” CISD’s motion for summary judgment stated.
“All these courts got it right. This Court should now follow its prior decision and vacate the Department’s unlawful Title IX rule, protecting the privacy and First Amendment rights of students and teachers across the country.”
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com