District Courts Enjoin Title IX Interpretation

A district court judge in Mississippi has enjoined the federal government's interpretation of “sex” in Title IX as including “gender identity.”  The specific rule at issue involved Medicaid funding of gender-transition treatments, but the rule linked its definition of unlawful discrimination to “any ground prohibited by Title IX.” Thus, the court had to parse the definition of “sex” in Title IX to determine whether the Medicaid rule was a valid exercise of government power.

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning Chevron deference to administrative agency opinions, the court stated, “[E]very statute's meaning is fixed at the time of enactment.”  It went on to reason,  “Since the word “sex” is not defined in Title IX, courts must interpret the term according to its meaning in or around 1972, when the statute was enacted.”  After reviewing the case law at the time, the court decided that “sex” means biological sex.

The court recognized that the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, and 9th Circuit have reached a different conclusion.  Nevertheless, it ruled against the interpretation based on its view of the case law, finding not binding precedent to the contrary within its Circuit.

The court then concluded that a nationwide stay of the Medicaid rule is warranted.  The stay presumably doesn't conflict with the Title IX rulings in the other circuits because those involved local school policies and not a Medicaid funding rule.  

District courts in Florida and Kansas reached similar conclusions shortly after the Mississippi court.  Appeals of all of these cases are certain to follow, and at some point, we are likely to see a Circuit split that may require attention from the U.S. Supreme Court.