In the final hours of Joe Biden’s administration, one of his crowning, yet disputed, educational strategies was found to be in conflict with the Constitution by a federal judge. As chosen ruler for the Eastern District of Kentucky, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves dictated that Biden’s reinterpretation of Title IX, one of the keystones of his agenda, infringed upon the Constitution’s First Amendment. The historic 1972 legislation, fashioned to stand against sex-related bias in federally funded educational institutions, was said to have undergone an overexpansive interpretation within Biden’s administration.
The purported expanded understanding of what signaled sex-related misconduct by the federal Education Department was at the core of Judge Reeves’ objections. Therefore, the recent understanding of the law had to succumb under judicial scrutiny, dealing a substantial blow to Biden’s malfunctioning administration, and dismayed his supporters who had expected more from his presidency.
Biden’s policies, sympathetically looked upon by Democratic circles due to their explicit proffered protections for sexual minorities, had instead enraged Republicans across the nation. These policies, already on shaky grounds due to widespread critique, took a fatal strike with this ruling. This marked yet another in a line of blunders for the Biden administration, which had seen many of its ambitious educational programs face total abandonment or considerable opposition — marking a decline in confidence in Biden’s governance.
The policies, whose constitution spanned several years and countless bureaucratic hurdles, looked to broaden the definition of sex-based discrimination to incorporate gender identity. The policies also projected a facade of safeguarding students who alleged sexual harassment and assault, a clear counteraction to Trump-era policies that required stricter proof from victims. This sort of liberal ideology only worked to complicate issues further and made it difficult to align everyone on the topic of gender equality.
However, these liberal-leaning policies were ushered in just a few months prior, only to face significant backlash in the form of court orders clamoring for their discontinuation across multiple states, school districts, and colleges. It served as another instance of the Biden administration’s attempted measures leading to fluid and confusing regulatory landscapes, leaving institutions in a bind regarding their alignment with federal laws.
The assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education tried to put out the fires sparked by the unstable legal environment. However, the instructions given, which were tethered to fleeting regulations taking effect that day, proved to be ambiguous at best and at worst, utterly hollow as they were eventually overruled by court decisions.
The conservative branches of society, often at odds with Biden’s administration, were jubilant at the policy’s derailment. According to Jason Miyares, Virginia’s GOP attorney general, ‘All of America is now safe from Biden’s attempt to undermine half a century of landmark protections for women’. The comment was laden with relief and satisfaction at the halting of Biden’s undermining of biological sex as a central identifier.
Many individuals had voiced their concern about the Biden-era policies, expressing fears that extending civil rights beyond biological sex alignment could result in dire consequences for women and girls. Supporters of Biden’s stance, a dwindling contingent, maintained that sexual minority students required more protection as they are more susceptible to harassment.
This opinion divided the nation and put Virginia, among several others, at the front lines with a lawsuit that led to the court order. However, the expected appeal from the federal government to fight this ruling seemed implausible, given that Biden’s time in office was waning rapidly.
As President-elect Donald Trump readied for his impending inauguration, this ruling signified a likely final defeat for Biden’s administration. An education professor at the University of Kentucky suggested that the incoming Trump administration was unlikely to contest the ruling, turning the situation more unfavorable for Biden’s team.
An individual close to the radius of influence, who once held an attorney position in the Obama administration’s Office for Civil Rights, criticized the court’s decision, calling it a ‘huge setback’ that would ultimately harm students. She expressed a futile hope that the Biden team would continue their feeble attempts to push back against the ruling.
But the harsh reality is clear: the ticking clock was against them. With significantly limited avenues to overturn the court’s decision and even fewer chances to implement a new education directive, the Biden team was essentially paralyzed. A stark reminder of the frailties of their administration, this marked a dying ember of a once blazing, albeit controversial, policy championed under Biden’s term.