The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights announced Monday it would rescind Title IX agreements that six schools made with the federal government under past administrations over gender identity. The department characterized the previous administrations' enforcement of Title IX as "illegal and burdensome" and objected to what it called the "improper use of preferred pronouns" and "asking questions about a student's preferred 'gender.'" Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in education, has become a flashpoint in debates over how schools should handle transgender student rights.
Schools that had signed these agreements now face changed expectations about their obligations under federal law.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Iowa law requiring schools to notify parents when students request accommodations intended to affirm their gender identity. Judge Ralph Erickson, joined by Judges Lavenski Smith and Jonathan Kobes, ruled that the parental notification requirement is sufficiently clear under the law.
The Iowa statute requires that if a student requests an accommodation from a school employee, including a request to use a name or pronoun different from what appears in school registration records, the school administrator must report the request to the student's parent or guardian. A lower court had found the term "accommodation" unconstitutionally vague, but the appeals court disagreed. The court determined that "accommodation" has a straightforward meaning in context: applying when a student requests to change, adapt, or modify an aspect of their gender identity.
The appeals court rejected arguments that an Iowa law prohibiting schools from providing instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six was unconstitutionally broad, finding that the statute's plain language applies to mandatory classroom curriculum rather than all school activities.
The district court had attempted to strike down two words in the statute, "program" and "promotion," arguing they were too expansive. But the appeals court applied what it called the canon of constitutional avoidance, adopting the state's interpretation that the law targets classroom instruction. The court emphasized that facial challenges to statutes face a high bar, requiring plaintiffs to show that unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh constitutional ones.
The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights announced Monday it would rescind Title IX agreements that six schools made with the federal government under past administrations over gender identity. The department characterized the previous administrations' enforcement of Title IX as "illegal and burdensome" and objected to what it called the "improper use of preferred pronouns" and "asking questions about a student's preferred 'gender.'" Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in education, has become a flashpoint in debates over how schools should handle transgender student rights.
The rescission immediately removes federal protections that had required schools to respect students' gender identity in areas including pronoun use and facility access. Schools that had signed these agreements now face changed expectations about their obligations under federal law.
While the federal government retreats from gender identity protections, courts in Iowa have moved in the opposite direction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Iowa law requiring schools to notify parents when students request accommodations intended to affirm their gender identity. Judge Ralph Erickson, joined by Judges Lavenski Smith and Jonathan Kobes, ruled that the parental notification requirement is sufficiently clear under the law.
The Iowa statute requires that if a student requests an accommodation from a school employee, including a request to use a name or pronoun different from what appears in school registration records, the school administrator must report the request to the student's parent or guardian. A lower court had found the term "accommodation" unconstitutionally vague, but the appeals court disagreed. The court determined that "accommodation" has a straightforward meaning in context: applying when a student requests to change, adapt, or modify an aspect of their gender identity.
The same court also upheld an Iowa law prohibiting schools from providing instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six. The appeals court rejected arguments that the law was unconstitutionally broad, finding that the statute's plain language applies to mandatory classroom curriculum rather than all school activities.
The district court had attempted to strike down two words in the statute, "program" and "promotion," arguing they were too expansive. But the appeals court applied what it called the canon of constitutional avoidance, adopting the state's interpretation that the law targets classroom instruction. The court emphasized that facial challenges to statutes face a high bar, requiring plaintiffs to show that unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh constitutional ones.
The plaintiffs in the case chose not to pursue narrower, as-applied challenges that might have presented specific examples of how the law could be misused. Judge Erickson wrote that without such a developed record, the court could not find the law's constitutional problems outweighed its permissible applications.
Highlighted text was flagged by the council. Tap to see feedback.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in *Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds* was written by Judge Ralph Erickson and joined by Judges Lavenski Smith and Jonathan Kobes.