On June 19, 2024, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, along with Parents Defending Education, the Independent Women’s Forum, and Speech First, filed a reply brief in their lawsuit, Alabama v. Cardona. They asked the federal district court to delay the rule’s effective date or issue a preliminary injunction, a court order that blocks the rule while the case goes on.
The brief argued:
- The rule faces broad opposition. Twenty-six states had challenged the rule, and courts had already blocked it in ten. The brief said “unelected bureaucrats tried to reinvent a landmark statute to impose their deeply unpopular views on the entire country.”
- The government’s defense was too generic. The Department of Education filed a one-size-fits-all brief that defended the rule only in broad terms.
- This circuit’s past rulings cut against the rule. The court had already noted that Eleventh Circuit precedent is “adverse” to the rule. In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, the Eleventh Circuit upheld separating school bathrooms by biological sex, which defeats the rule’s bathroom provision. Another decision found that broad harassment definitions like the rule’s raise serious First Amendment concerns.
- The rule will cause lasting harm. Because the court is likely to strike the rule down, it should not let the rule harm states and students in the meantime.
The plaintiffs asked the court to act by August 1, 2024, when the rule was set to take effect.
Read the full brief here:
