|
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
STATE OF TENNESSEE; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA;
STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF GEORGIA;
STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF KANSAS;
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF
NEBRASKA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL; A.F., a
minor, by Sara Ford, her mother,
Intervenors-Appellees,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; MIGUEL CARDONA, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Education; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, in her
official capacity as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MERRICK B.
GARLAND, Attorney General, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States; KRISTEN CLARKE, in her official
capacity as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the
United States Department of Justice,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 22-5807 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:21-cv-00308—Charles Edward Atchley, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: April 26, 2023
Decided and Filed: June 14, 2024
Before: BOGGS, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision, the
U.S. Department of Education issued three documents under Title IX—each stating that the
Department will now fully enforce Title IX to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity
discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.1 The
Department’s actions prompted twenty states to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. A district
court granted the States a preliminary injunction. On interlocutory appeal, the Department
challenges this ruling, arguing that the States lack standing, the Documents are unreviewable,
and the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. We disagree and affirm. |
|