Judge John Broomes, nominated by President Trump to the federal district court in the district of Kansas, issued a broad order that blocked a rule and guidance by the Department of Education seeking to protect students from anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. The Department had explained that Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments Act prohibits recipients of federal education funds from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Broomes' injunction applies to schools in the four states that brought the suit in Kansas, as well as to over 1800 other schools attended by children of members of Moms For Liberty and several other groups that also filed suit. The July 2024 decision was in Kansas v Department of Education.
What is the background of the LGBTQ+ Rule and this case?
In the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision in 2020, the Court ruled that the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment in Title VII includes forbidding employers from discriminating because someone is gay or transgender. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued similarly revised guidance in 2021.
Advocates pushed for the Department of Education to promulgate similar protection for LGBTQ+ students and other individuals from discrimination by schools and other institutions that receive education funds Although the Trump Education Department declined to do so, the Department did act beginning in 2021. In June of that year, the Department published an “interpretation” of Title IX that explained that in light of Bostock and the similarities between Title VII and Title IX, it would enforce Title IX to “prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity” in federally funded programs. Even as lawsuits were pending challenging the guidance, the Department issued a proposed and then a final rule in April, 2024, spelling out how the anti-discrimination principle applies to public schools.
Kansas and three other states promptly filed suit against the rule. Several right-wing organizations joined the suit on behalf of their members, including Moms For Liberty. Because the regulations were scheduled to take effect in August, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block them until the lawsuit concludes.
How did Judge Broomes rule and why is the result harmful?
Following the example of Trump judges in several other cases, Judge Broomes found that the rule's opponents were likely to prevail and issued a preliminary injunction against the rule. The injunction covered not only the four states that had filed the suit, but also covered schools across the country attended by children of members of the three groups that filed suit, including Moms For Liberty. Broomes maintained that Title IX prohibits discrimination only with respect to biological gender, not gender identity, and, therefore, decided that the rule is not authorized by Title IX. He also decided that the rule is arbitrary and capricious and violates the First Amendment.
The future of this issue remains in doubt. Although injunctions have been issued against the Department rule in a number of states, some courts have ruled that they are valid, and they have gone into effect in many areas. There is little doubt, however, that decisions by Trump judge like Broomes harm lgbtq+ students and others. And they emphasize the importance of filling vacancies on our federal courts with fair-minded judges who will protect everyone’s rights.