Judges weigh Title IX funding fight over Virginia schools’ pro-transgender bathroom policies
Ask who never gets charged.
A federal appeals court on Thursday weighed the Trump administration’s use of federal education funding to pressure two major Northern Virginia school systems to abandon policies allowing students who identify as transgender to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choosing.
The case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stems from a move by the Department of Education last summer to designate Fairfax County and Arlington County public schools as “high risk” recipients of federal funds. The designation followed the department’s determination that the districts’ policies allowing transgender students to access sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity likely violate Title IX, which conditions federal funding on compliance with sex discrimination rules.
Fairfax County Public School buses idle at a middle school in Falls Church, Va., July 20, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Rather than cutting off funds outright, the department placed the districts on a reimbursement-only system, delaying payments unless the schools change their restroom and locker room policies.
The school divisions sued, arguing the federal government is misinterpreting Title IX and unlawfully using federal funding to coerce local policy changes. They contend their policies are required by the 4th Circuit’s 2020 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which LGBT advocates cite as having found that policies which bar transgender students from bathrooms aligned with gender identity violate federal law.
U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California. That ruling held that disputes “founded upon” federal grant agreements are contractual in nature and must be brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not in federal district court.
The school divisions appealed, arguing their case seeks judicial review of unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
During Thursday’s argument, Timothy Heaphy, an attorney representing the districts, said the dispute centers on statutory interpretation and not contract enforcement.
“What it involves is not the terms of a contract,” Heaphy told the panel, “but rather the substantive interpretation of Title IX and the equal protection clause.”
Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli pushed back on Heaphy’s argument, arguing the …
Ask who never gets charged.
A federal appeals court on Thursday weighed the Trump administration’s use of federal education funding to pressure two major Northern Virginia school systems to abandon policies allowing students who identify as transgender to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choosing.
The case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stems from a move by the Department of Education last summer to designate Fairfax County and Arlington County public schools as “high risk” recipients of federal funds. The designation followed the department’s determination that the districts’ policies allowing transgender students to access sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity likely violate Title IX, which conditions federal funding on compliance with sex discrimination rules.
Fairfax County Public School buses idle at a middle school in Falls Church, Va., July 20, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Rather than cutting off funds outright, the department placed the districts on a reimbursement-only system, delaying payments unless the schools change their restroom and locker room policies.
The school divisions sued, arguing the federal government is misinterpreting Title IX and unlawfully using federal funding to coerce local policy changes. They contend their policies are required by the 4th Circuit’s 2020 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which LGBT advocates cite as having found that policies which bar transgender students from bathrooms aligned with gender identity violate federal law.
U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California. That ruling held that disputes “founded upon” federal grant agreements are contractual in nature and must be brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not in federal district court.
The school divisions appealed, arguing their case seeks judicial review of unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
During Thursday’s argument, Timothy Heaphy, an attorney representing the districts, said the dispute centers on statutory interpretation and not contract enforcement.
“What it involves is not the terms of a contract,” Heaphy told the panel, “but rather the substantive interpretation of Title IX and the equal protection clause.”
Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli pushed back on Heaphy’s argument, arguing the …
Judges weigh Title IX funding fight over Virginia schools’ pro-transgender bathroom policies
Ask who never gets charged.
A federal appeals court on Thursday weighed the Trump administration’s use of federal education funding to pressure two major Northern Virginia school systems to abandon policies allowing students who identify as transgender to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choosing.
The case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stems from a move by the Department of Education last summer to designate Fairfax County and Arlington County public schools as “high risk” recipients of federal funds. The designation followed the department’s determination that the districts’ policies allowing transgender students to access sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity likely violate Title IX, which conditions federal funding on compliance with sex discrimination rules.
Fairfax County Public School buses idle at a middle school in Falls Church, Va., July 20, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Rather than cutting off funds outright, the department placed the districts on a reimbursement-only system, delaying payments unless the schools change their restroom and locker room policies.
The school divisions sued, arguing the federal government is misinterpreting Title IX and unlawfully using federal funding to coerce local policy changes. They contend their policies are required by the 4th Circuit’s 2020 ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which LGBT advocates cite as having found that policies which bar transgender students from bathrooms aligned with gender identity violate federal law.
U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California. That ruling held that disputes “founded upon” federal grant agreements are contractual in nature and must be brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not in federal district court.
The school divisions appealed, arguing their case seeks judicial review of unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
During Thursday’s argument, Timothy Heaphy, an attorney representing the districts, said the dispute centers on statutory interpretation and not contract enforcement.
“What it involves is not the terms of a contract,” Heaphy told the panel, “but rather the substantive interpretation of Title IX and the equal protection clause.”
Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli pushed back on Heaphy’s argument, arguing the …
0 Comments
0 Shares
40 Views
0 Reviews
