Moms for Liberty claims more than 2,000 schools should have federal LGBTQ protections blocked

The far-right group submitted the list in a Title IX rule lawsuit. Also: Alliance Defending Freedom, back at SCOTUS.

Less than a week before the Biden administration’s new sex discrimination rule is set to go into effect on August 1, the far-right group Moms for Liberty told a federal judge in Kansas that his order blocking enforcement of the rule should apply to more than 2,000 schools across the nation — including in several states where no litigation is pending.

The rule, enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, has largely faced opposition due to its provision of transgender protections under the extensive rule. The Justice Department currently has two requests before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to enforce most of the rule while litigation proceeds. (More on that below.)

A July 2 preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee in Kansas, has been covered extensively at Law Dork but, due to the vague nature of his injunction, the full scope of its coverage wasn’t clear until Friday evening. Although it blocked enforcement in four states that sued, it also covered — nationwide — the members of two groups that sued and the children of the members of Moms for Liberty.

Lawyers for Moms for Liberty, after some back and forth, finally submitted the list of what they claim are “the K-12 schools attended by the children of its members” on Friday evening.

The list includes schools in 46 states. What’s more, 22 of the states with schools listed are not even challenging the rule. They are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The list of schools includes more than 100 schools in California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; more than 200 schools in North Carolina; and more than 300 schools in Wisconsin.

Schools from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina are listed as well. Those states are plaintiffs in a challenge to the rule, but U.S. District Judge Annemarie Axon, a Trump appointee, is yet to rule on injunctive relief requests.

While the injunction issued by Broomes is against the federal government, the injunction effectively changes the application of federal rules in a patchwork, piecemeal fashion across the country — states and school districts whose officials are not involved directly in the Kansas case and who would only be aware of the injunction’s effect on the new rule if they decide, affirmatively, to check the list. (Broomes could inform the schools, but, based on the list provided, that would be a significant task, so I seriously doubt that’s going to happen in the coming days.)

This injunction has been problematic since it was issued — and Friday evening’s filing only makes that more clear.

SCOTUS update

Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court, the Alliance Defending Freedom on Friday told the Supreme Court that transgender people do not exist in urging the justices to reject the Justice Department’s request to allow the Education Department to enforce much of its Title IX rule during appeals of litigation over the rule.

In a pair of filings, the group argued repeatedly that transgender women are “men” in their opposition to the DOJ request.

The states fighting the rule filed similar requests — although the Louisiana-led brief was, technically, filed nine minutes late — but ADF has taken on a significant role in trying to push some of the most extreme arguments in front of the justices.

The far-right Christian legal advocacy organization unsuccessfully tried to get the conservative justices to rule this term that the medication abortion drug mifepristone is illegal and that federal emergency room protections don’t include abortion care.

Now, the group is fighting an anti-trans battle to block the Title IX rule up to the court. This time, though they’re coming to the court on a string of wins from conservative judges and, earlier this week, one Democratic appointee.

What’s more, while ADF has previously brought litigation representing private parties — whose backgrounds have been repeatedly questioned — Law Dork and, subsequently, others have reported on ADF increasingly representing states and local governmental entities directly in ideological litigation.

Multiple contracts obtained by Law Dork show that, at least some of the times, ADF carries out this representation for free — a troubling practice that experts have questioned.

The filings before the Supreme Court on Friday included both private and public representation from ADF, with one filing on behalf of a student and an organization and the other on behalf of a school board in Louisiana.

Read all of the Law Dork coverage of the challenges to the Title IX rule here.