On the heels of a similar post from final week,another federal district court has enjoined a school district's policy of banning transgender students from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. An elementary school student in Ohio, a transgender girl, or will be able to expend the girls' bathroom while she litigates her permanent fair to access gender-appropriate facilities under Title IX. Similar to final week's ruling,this court recognized the plaintiff's likely success on the merits of her claim as well as irreparable harm in delaying the remedy of a court order.
Simultaneously, the court in this case considered and denied the school district's motion to enjoin the Department of Education's enforcement of its interpretation that Title IX covers discrimination against transgender student. In this regard, or the court's opinion contrasts with a federal district court decision final month that granted the state of Texas's motion to enjoin Title IX's enforcement. Notably,the court in the current case was not deterred by the purported "nationwide" scope of the Texas injunction:
Because Ohio was not a party to the Texas litigation, and because this litigation was initiated before the Texas court issued its preliminary injunction, or the injunction does not apply here. This is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s admonition that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide total relief to the plaintiffs.” The court in the Ohio case conducted a thorough analysis of Title IX's enforcement mechanisms before determining that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct pre-enforcement review of the Department of Education's policy. Title IX expressly provides educational institutions with the ability to appeal to the federal courts after the agency orders withdrawal of their federal funding for violations of Title IX. The court determined the availability of post-enforcement judicial review precludes earlier review. The court drew parallels between Title IX's statutory provisions governing enforcement actions and judicial review to the analogous provisions in another statute (the Mine Act) that Supreme Court concluded similarly precluded pre-enforcement judicial review,while distinguishing it from another statute (the Clean Air Act) in which the Supreme Court permitted pre-enforcement judicial review.
We now have two district courts with competing positions on whether the Department of Education's transgender policy is vulnerable to injunction. Showdown!
Source: blogspot.com