On Thursday, a federal district court in Kentucky dealt a significant setback to the Biden administration’s contentious effort to extend Title IX protections to cover gender identity.

The administration had proposed new rules on April 29 requiring schools to ignore biological differences between men and women, prompting legal challenges from multiple states, women’s groups, athletic associations, and school boards.

Attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) joined the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, and West Virginia in a lawsuit, resulting in a federal district court ruling in Kentucky that blocked the proposed rule.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff states, declaring that the Department of Education’s reinterpretation of the 1972 law was unconstitutional and exceeded the agency’s authority. The case, State of Tennessee v. Cardona, challenged a broad Final Rule issued by the Department of Education, which sought to redefine “sex” under Title IX to include “gender identity,” sexual orientation, and other classifications.

The court declared the administration’s action an overreach, stating that “discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” and that redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” “turns Title IX on its head.”

ADF’s client, a 15-year-old female track-and-field athlete from West Virginia, was compelled to compete against a male athlete who displaced her from championship opportunities, gained access to the girls’ locker room, and made vulgar comments toward her.

U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves, who oversaw the case, ruled firmly in favor of the states, labeling the new regulations as an unlawful overreach.

“Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied,” Reeves stated in the ruling.

The Biden administration referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County as a legal justification. However, the court clearly rejected this reasoning, stating that the ruling was specifically related to employment discrimination under Title VII and did not apply to educational settings governed by Title IX.

“But this approach simply does not make sense. Confirming the arbitrary nature of these new regulations, the Department has offered no rational explanation for the stark inconsistencies that will result if the Final Rule is allowed to go forward,” Reeves wrote.