Tag: Administrations

  • Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    by CUPA-HR | January 9, 2025

    On January 9, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky Court vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. The order strikes down the regulations nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2019 Title IX regulations set by the Trump administration.

    Background

    The Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was released in April 2024 and was set to take effect on August 1, 2024. Soon after the rule was published, several states filed legal challenges against it, resulting in preliminary injunctions that blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states that did not challenge the regulations.

    The Biden administration appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts to block only those provisions that related to gender identity. They argued that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students and that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements set forth by the final rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Biden administration’s request, arguing that the gender identity provisions were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    District Court Judge’s Ruling

    In the ruling that vacates the rule nationwide, the federal judge stated that the Biden administration’s Title IX rule is unlawful because Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not include the scope laid out in the regulations, which include expanded protections for pregnancy or related conditions, gender identity and sexual orientation. The order also states that the rule violates the First Amendment and that it is “arbitrary and capricious.”

    Looking Ahead

    The judge’s order almost certainly ends any hopes for the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations to take effect nationwide. The Biden administration may decide to appeal the decision to a higher court, but efforts to reinstate the rule will likely be unsuccessful given the few days they have left in office and the incoming Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend the rule in court. Alternatively, the Trump administration may seek to update their 2019 Title IX regulations, though any urgency to do so may be diminished now that the 2019 regulations are back in place.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised via Washington Insider Alert emails and the blog.



    Source link

  • Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 19, 2024

    On August 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s request to partially overturn preliminary injunctions from lower courts that block the Department of Education from enforcing the administration’s April 2024 Title IX final rule. The decision leaves the preliminary injunctions from the lower district courts in place, preventing the new Title IX rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states.

    Background

    Shortly after the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was published, over two dozen states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the rule. Over the course of the summer, decisions from lower district courts across the country placed preliminary injunctions on the final rule, leading to the blocking of the final rule in 26 states, as well as at hundreds of schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United and Moms for Liberty are in attendance.*

    After several preliminary injunctions were issued, the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court with an emergency request asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts. Specifically, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to only block provisions of the Title IX final rule related to gender identity, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students. The Biden administration had hoped that by limiting the scope of the preliminary injunctions, other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements would be able to take effect on August 1.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s plea to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions, leaving in place the lower courts’ rulings. The majority opinion stated that the Biden administration did not provide a strong enough argument to sway the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, and they argued that the gender identity provisions the Biden administration had hoped to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    Looking Ahead

    With the Supreme Court’s decision, the preliminary injunctions from the lower courts are still in place. Further decisions from the district courts on the legality of the final rule are still pending. The Title IX rule could return to the Supreme Court in the future, however, depending on how lower courts rule on the legality of the final rule and whether those decisions are appealed.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the legal challenges against the Biden administration’s Title IX rule.

    *The 26 states where the rule is blocked from being enforced by the Department of Education are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The final rule is also blocked from taking effect at hundreds of colleges and universities across the country, including in states that did not challenge the Title IX final rule. A list of those schools can be found here.



    Source link

  • Biden Administration’s Vaccine Mandates Face Legal Challenges in Court – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration’s Vaccine Mandates Face Legal Challenges in Court – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 9, 2021

    Over the past several months, the Biden administration announced and implemented several vaccine and testing mandates for federal workers, federal contractors and private employers. States and business stakeholders quickly responded with lawsuits against the administration’s mandates, which continue to be challenged in courts around the country. To keep CUPA-HR members apprised of the legal challenges, we have detailed below the most recent litigation updates for the federal contractor vaccine mandate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) vaccine mandate for healthcare workers — all three of which are on hold pending the various lawsuits’ outcomes.

    Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate

    On September 9, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 (EO), “Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors,” as part of his “Path Out of the Pandemic” plan. The EO tasks the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force with implementing guidance that requires all federal contractors to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their employees. The current effective date is January 4, 2022, meaning all covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated by January 18, 2022. A federal court recently enjoined the government from implementing the EO, however, so it remains unclear when, if ever, the mandate will go into effect.

    Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the mandate arguing that the Biden administration does not have authority to require vaccinations, and two federal courts have already issued decisions. On November 30, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a preliminary injunction against the mandate, stopping enforcement in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee only. On December 7, a federal judge at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted a motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction against the vaccination mandate for federal contractors, halting enforcement for federal contractors in all states. The Biden administration is expected to challenge this decision.

    OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard

    On November 5, OSHA issued its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement vaccination or testing policies for their workers. As it currently stands, the ETS requires covered employers and employees to be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022. A federal court has enjoined OSHA from implementing the ETS, however, and it remains unclear whether the ETS will be in effect on January 4 or anytime thereafter.

    Over three dozen lawsuits were filed against the rule, with at least one in all 12 circuit courts in the country. On November 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted an emergency motion to stay the ETS, and on November 12, it extended the stay while it further reviewed the motion for a permanent injunction, ordering OSHA to stop implementation and enforcement of the ETS until further court order. Due to the high volume of cases at various circuit courts, a lottery was held on November 18 to determine which circuit court would hear the case to make a sweeping decision, which the 6th Circuit won, meaning the stay remains in place until the 6th Circuit makes a decision on the motion. It is likely the stay will remain in place until at least December 10; that said, the 6th Circuit can decide to lift the stay before that if it chooses to do so.

    CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers

    On November 5, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule requiring healthcare workers in facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds be vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 4, 2022. This rule also has been stayed by federal courts.

    Four lawsuits were filed against CMS challenging the agency’s authority to issue the rule. On November 29, the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocked implementation and enforcement in the 10 states that challenged the rule: Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Hampshire. On November 30, the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the mandate nationwide, except in the 10 states impacted by the Missouri ruling. Decisions in the two other lawsuits are still pending.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor the ongoing litigation for all of the vaccine and testing mandates and will keep members apprised of any decisions that will impact institutions’ compliance efforts.



    Source link