WASHINGTON — The Biden administration’s Title IX rules that aimed to enhance protections for LGBTQ+ students have been nullified nationwide after a ruling from U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves in Kentucky determined that the measures exceeded the president's authority. In a decision released on Thursday, Judge Reeves rejected the entire **1,500-page regulation**, declaring it “fatally” flawed and legally problematic. This move comes after the rules faced suspension in 26 states due to numerous legal challenges from Republican-led states (AP News).

Previously, Donald Trump, days before his inauguration, had vowed to eliminate these rules immediately, with anti-transgender rhetoric being a major theme of his campaign. The ruling was part of a lawsuit brought by states including Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. Tennessee's Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, described the decision as a dismissal of Biden’s “relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology” (LA Times).

The Title IX regulation, originally established in 1972 to prohibit discrimination based on sex within educational settings, was aimed at extending protections to include discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The legislation also expanded the definition of harassment, introducing broader parameters regarding school responses to discrimination and sexual violence. Advocates for civil rights celebrated these changes, viewing them as protective measures for LGBTQ+ students, who often face significant bullying and discrimination (The Guardian).

However, the legislation encountered backlash from conservatives, who expressed concerns that it might enable transgender athletes to unfairly compete in women's sports. Critics like former education secretary Betsy DeVos applauded the ruling, labeling the Biden administration's regulation as “radical and unfair.” In contrast, organizations such as GLAAD voiced their disappointment, stating that these protections were vital for fostering safer educational environments for vulnerable student populations.

In his ruling, Judge Reeves articulated that the Education Department had overstepped its jurisdiction, asserting that the original Title IX law does not encompass these broader applications. He emphasized that this scope expansion represented an “attempt to bypass the legislative process.” Furthermore, he indicated that the rules violated First Amendment rights by mandating that educators use pronouns correlating to a student's declared gender identity. He argued that the government should not compel speech or force individuals to affirm beliefs with which they do not agree (LA Times). Ultimately, Reeves dismissed the regulations in totality, suggesting a return to the pre-existing interpretation of Title IX that had prevailed for over fifty years.

This latest legal development signals a significant change in the landscape of educational protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, raising questions about the future of such regulations under a potentially Republican-led Congress.