Parents Defending Education Files Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal in Title IX Lawsuit

The Department’s Title IX rule is currently enjoined in all 26 States that challenged it. Why should it suddenly (and fully) go into force in only four of those States before its legality is resolved? The Department cannot justify that arbitrary disparity. These four States didn’t uniquely “delay” (an argument the Department won’t defend). These States didn’t have uniquely inferior briefs or evidence (an argument the Department didn’t make below and won’t try to prove here). And these States didn’t face uniquely unfavorable precedent. The opposite: Adams forecloses the rule’s treatment of bathrooms, and it fatally undermines the rule’s definition of sex discrimination. Hence why the other courts that froze the rule cited Adams as persuasive. E.g., Tennessee v. Cardona, 2024 WL 3453880, at *2 (6th Cir.).

This circuit should be the last place where the Department can immediately enforce its rule, not the first and only outlier. This Court should preserve the status quo by converting its administrative injunction into an injunction pending appeal.