Department of Education v. Louisiana
The Supreme Court refused to let the Biden administration's sweeping new Title IX rule take effect in the states that challenged it, turning away the government's emergency request to revive most of the rule while federal appeals continue.
All nine justices agreed that the rule's core gender-identity provisions should stay blocked, but the five-justice majority also left the entire rule on hold, rejecting the government's argument that the uncontested portions could be separated out and allowed to operate in the meantime.
How it got here: Federal trial courts in Louisiana and Kentucky blocked the entire new Title IX rule; the Fifth and Sixth Circuits refused to pause those blocks; the government filed emergency applications directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Department of Education issued a major new rule implementing Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools that receive federal money. For the first time, the rule defined sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation. A coalition of Republican-led states sued, arguing the new definition went beyond what Congress authorized. Federal trial courts sided with the states and blocked the entire rule from taking effect in the plaintiff states.
The question before the Court
Could the federal government's new Title IX rule — which redefined sex discrimination to cover gender identity — be allowed to partially take effect in the states that challenged it, while courts decide whether the rule is lawful?
The Court's answer
No — the government could not get the Court to revive any part of its new Title IX rule for the states that challenged it. All nine justices agreed that at least three provisions — including the core definition of sex discrimination to cover gender identity — should remain blocked. The disputed question was whether the government could "sever" (legally separate) those three blocked provisions from the rest of the rule and let the remainder take effect in the interim.
The Court refused, finding that the government had not met its burden as the party seeking emergency relief. The lower courts had concluded the three blocked provisions are deeply intertwined with other parts of the rule, and the government failed to give the Supreme Court a sufficient basis to second-guess those preliminary findings. The government also never clearly identified which specific other provisions could stand independently without the blocked definition. With federal appeals courts already moving quickly, the Court left the full injunctions in place.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Students, parents, and schools in the plaintiff states will be without the new Title IX rule — including updates to pregnancy accommodations, anti-retaliation protections, and complaint procedures — for as long as the legal challenges continue. Federal agencies in those states also cannot enforce any part of the updated rule, including provisions entirely unrelated to gender identity.
What changes now
The entire new Title IX rule remains blocked in the plaintiff states while the Fifth and Sixth Circuits hear the government's appeals of the preliminary injunctions. The Court noted it expects the appeals courts to act with appropriate dispatch — the Sixth Circuit has already scheduled oral argument for October. Depending on how those courts rule, the case could return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on whether the rule is lawful.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the Title IX rule is actually lawful or whether the new definition of sex discrimination exceeds Congress's authority. It is a temporary ruling only about whether to pause the lower courts' blocks while appeals continue. The underlying legal questions remain open for the courts of appeals to resolve.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent in part — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor would have granted most of the government's stay request and allowed the provisions unrelated to gender identity — such as pregnancy accommodations for students, anti-retaliation protections, and updated complaint procedures — to take effect immediately. She argued the lower court injunctions are overbroad under traditional equity principles, which require that a court remedy go no further than necessary to fix the specific harms a plaintiff actually alleged. Because the states' alleged injuries trace entirely to three provisions, blocking the entire rule deprives students and schools in those states of protections they never challenged.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the emergency-stay standard, which requires the party seeking the pause — here, the federal government — to demonstrate, among other things, a likely chance of winning the specific legal argument at issue and that the balance of harms favors intervening before the appeal concludes. The burden falls on the applicant.
- All nine justices agreed that three provisions of the new rule should stay blocked while the legal challenges play out: the provision defining sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation, the provision governing access to sex-separated spaces on the basis of gender identity, and the definition of 'hostile environment harassment.' That baseline was uncontested.
- The government's emergency request asked the Court to sever (legally separate) those three enjoined provisions from the rest of the rule and let the remaining provisions take effect in the plaintiff states. Winning that argument required showing a likely chance of success on appeal on the severability question.
- The lower courts had found, at least at this early stage, that the new definition of sex discrimination is intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the rule — making clean severance difficult. The government did not supply this Court with sufficient grounds on the limited emergency record to disturb those preliminary conclusions.
- The government also failed to specifically identify which other provisions were sufficiently independent of the blocked definition to safely take effect on their own — a gap that undercut its request for targeted partial relief.
- On the equities, the Sixth Circuit had already expedited its review and scheduled oral argument for October, meaning the appeals courts were positioned to act promptly. The Court found it appropriate to let that process move forward rather than intervene with an emergency partial stay.