Federal court dismisses appeal of injunction issued against Biden-era Title IX rule change
A change in presidential administrations has resulted in the dismissal of an appeal by the federal government of an injunction granted to Oklahoma over a new interpretation of Title IX.
Last May, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit against then-U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and the U.S. Department of Education concerning a new Title IX rule interpretation announced by the federal agency the previous month.
The interpretation, under the administration of former President Joe Biden, added gender identity as a protected class under the law. Cardona had announced the new Title IX rule interpretation on April 19.
In his lawsuit, Drummond argued that interpretation was unconstitutional and ignored the language within Title IX, a law passed in 1972 that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program that receives financial assistance from the federal government. U.S. District Judge Jodi Dishman — an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term — agreed and issued an injunction against the rule's enforcement in Oklahoma.
Cardona and the federal agency appealed that ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, now under Trump's current administration, that appeal was dropped on Friday.
'I appreciate President Trump's willingness to dismiss the misguided appeal filed by the Biden Administration,' Drummond said in a statement. 'Oklahoma students can now rest assured they will be protected from invasions of privacy and other unnecessary harm, thanks to this responsible resolution.'
The Oklahoma State Department of Education, led by state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters, filed a separate lawsuit over the new Title IX rule interpretation on the same day as Drummond. Dishman dismissed that lawsuit in January, '(b)ecause Plaintiff did not timely serve Defendants within 90 days of the filing of this action and did not comply with the Court's order giving Plaintiff additional time to effect service.'
Nicole McAfee, the executive director of Freedom Oklahoma — an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization — expressed disappointment in Drummond's statement about the dismissal of the appeal.
"It's a shame to see our attorney general and other state leaders celebrate a decision that will further harm some of our most vulnerable youth, when we know that allowing gender-based violence against 2STGNC+ students is deadly," McAfee said. "I wish the politicians putting out celebratory statements like this cared about all kids, including the thousands of trans youth who call Oklahoma home, as much as they do their personal, political platforms."
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Federal court dismisses appeal of injunction over Title IX rule change
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
2 hours ago
- E&E News
EPA revoking Biden's climate limits for power plants
President Donald Trump's administration is moving to wipe out federal limits on power plants' climate pollution — attacking the Biden era's most ambitious attempt to use regulations to lessen the nation's output of heat-trapping gases. EPA announced Wednesday that it would scrap the 2024 regulation that requires existing coal-burning power plants, and future plants burning natural gas, to begin capturing their carbon dioxide pollution in the 2030s. The Trump proposal would leave the nation's second-largest source of climate pollution — the power sector — free of federal requirements to address global warming. The first Trump administration repealed a similar rule that had been written under former President Barack Obama and replaced it with a weaker regulation. Advertisement The United States is the world's second-biggest climate polluter, lagging only behind China. But in its draft rule, EPA argues that the U.S. power sector's pollution by itself doesn't significantly contribute to global climate change, making it unnecessary to regulate it. The administration also announced it would repeal a separate Biden-era rule aimed at reducing power plants' releases of toxic mercury into the air.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is Georgia's Fort Eisenhower getting its Fort Gordon name restored? Yes and no
Did you just get used to calling Fort Gordon Fort Eisenhower? Well, depending on your point of view, we have some good or bad news. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump and the U.S. Army announced seven installations, including this Georgia base, will have their names reverted with a twist. Here's what we know: Fort Barefoot in Virginia to Fort Pickett Fort Cavazos in Texas to Fort Hood Fort Eisenhower in Georgia to Fort Gordon Fort Gregg-Adams in Virginia to Fort Lee Fort Johnson in Louisiana to Fort Polk Fort Novosel in Alabama to Fort Rucker Fort Walker in Virginia to Fort A.P. Hill All of the original names of these installations were connected to members of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Under the Biden Administration, an independent commission was created to recommend name changes in the wake of renewed calls for racial justice following the death of George Floyd. While the original names are being restored, the original namesakes are not. For example, Fort Pickett is no longer named after the Confederacy's Maj. Gen. George Pickett. Instead, it will be named after World War II First Lt. Vernon W. Pickett. So why change the names back (but not really)? Trump said during his visit to North Carolina's Fort Bragg "We won a lot of battles out of those forts — it's no time to I'm superstitious, you know, I like to keep it going right." Originally, Augusta's Fort Gordon honored Lt. Gen. John Brown Gordon, one of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee's most trusted officers, according to Time. He is also believed to have been a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, according to the National Governors Association. Now, Fort Gordon will be named after Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon, according to the Army's press release. Gordon was a Maine native who received the Medal of Honor for his service and sacrifice during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia. The award was given posthumously to his widow by President Bill Clinton in 1994, according to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. The base is named after President Dwight D. Eisenhower who was famously also an Army general and even re-entered the military after his presidential term. As the Army described in 2023 when the base was renamed, Augusta was a major place of respite for "Ike" with its ample opportunities for hunting and golf. While specific numbers haven't been reported for this change, when it was first renamed in 2023, the cost of changing signed alone, not counting auxiliary street signs placed by the City of Augusta, was estimated at about $1.3 million. Miguel Legoas is a Deep South Connect Team Reporter for Gannett/USA Today. Find him on Instagram @miguelegoas and email at mlegoas@ This article originally appeared on Savannah Morning News: Georgia's Fort Eisenhower renamed Fort Gordon? What we know
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Digital Assets Are One Step Closer to Regulatory Clarity
The United States is on the brink of a new technological frontier – one powered by blockchain and digital assets. These assets are not just the next phase of the internet, but lay the foundation for a more secure, decentralized, and inclusive financial future. From reimagining global payments to protecting data privacy, the potential of blockchain-based systems is endless. Despite the promise of this technology, the United States remains without a clear, comprehensive federal regulatory framework for digital assets. This absence has created uncertainty for innovators, consumers and investors alike. Entrepreneurs operating in the digital asset operating in the digital asset space face ambiguous rules and unclear jurisdictional boundaries between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Investors lack the transparency and protection they deserve. Under the Biden Administration, the SEC chose to regulate through enforcement, rather than through clear guidance or collaboration. The agency's approach has led to lawsuits, confusion, and the offshoring of promising American companies seeking regulatory certainty abroad. For years, Congress has worked under both Republican and Democratic leadership to close this gap and create a tailored, modern regulatory framework. That work reached a milestone in May 2024 when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century (FIT21) Act with bipartisan support as 71 Democrats voted in favor of the bill. FIT21 laid the groundwork for how digital assets should be treated under U.S. law, clarified the roles of the CFTC and SEC, and provided pathways for registration, disclosure, and compliance. This Congress, we are building on that momentum and continue to push for smart, tailored policy that fosters innovation while protecting consumers. In April, the House Financial Services Committee passed the bipartisan STABLE Act, which would establish a clear and comprehensive set of rules for the issuance and regulation of payment stablecoins that have the potential to modernize the way we transact by making payments faster, cheaper, and more inclusive. Yesterday, we took another major step forward. The Financial Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee passed the CLARITY Act, a landmark bipartisan bill that was carefully crafted between our committees. The CLARITY Act establishes a functional framework for the classification of digital assets, provides builders and firms with clear regulatory obligations, and ensures robust consumer protections against fraud and bad actors. The STABLE and CLARITY Acts form the most comprehensive digital asset regulatory framework Congress has ever advanced. Collectively, these bills will ensure that the United States sets the global standard for the future of digital assets. We are committed to working with our colleagues in both chambers to enact comprehensive digital asset legislation into law. The rest of the world is not waiting to lead in blockchain innovation. If we fail to act, we risk ceding leadership in one of the most transformative technologies in modern history. Congress has the opportunity and responsibility to establish a regulatory framework that unlocks the next era of American innovation. It is time for the United States to lead in the new digital frontier.
