By: Brittany Flaherty Theis
A previous Whitt Law News & Knowledge blog post (found here) discusses the order of a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas (the “Order”) that issued a preliminary injunction seeking to halt the impact of the Department of Education and Department of Justice’s Dear Colleague Letter regarding transgender students (the “Letter”). See State of Texas et al. v. United States of America et al.,7:16-CV-00054-O (August 21, 2016). The previous post describes the lawsuit that was filed, the Court’s Order, and the scope of the injunction being granted. The Order also describes the requirements that must be met before a federal court will issue a preliminary injunction. Those requirements are the subject of this blog post.
As described in the Order, federal case law requires that the party requesting a preliminary injunction (the movant) must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that granting the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. The movant has the burden of establishing each element, and the decision of whether to grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Courts characterize a preliminary injunction as “an extraordinary and drastic remedy, not to be granted routinely.”
After determining that the Plaintiffs’ claims were properly subject to judicial review, the Court went through each consideration before ultimately granting the preliminary injunction described in more detail in the previous blog post. Specifically, the Court held that the Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendants’ argument that the Letter is comprised of interpretive rules that do not carry the force of law, and that, therefore, the Letter should not be deemed to violate the Administrative Procedures Act. Rather, the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument that: (1) the Defendants bypassed the notice and comment process required by the Administrative Procedures Act; (2) the text in Title IX and Section 106.33 of the regulations implementing Title IX is not ambiguous; and (3) the Defendants are not entitled to Auer deference.
Regarding a threat of irreparable injury, although the Defendants appeared to concede that some of the Plaintiffs’ policies and practices conflicted with the guidelines in the Letter, they argued that additional threats of enforcement would be required before irreparable injury could exist. The Court disagreed and concluded the conflicting policies and practices sufficiently demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm.
In balancing the hardships and considering the public interest (the third and fourth prongs), the Court explained that its failure to grant the preliminary injunction would place the Defendants “in the position of either maintaining their current policies in the face of the federal government’s view that they are violating the law, or changing them to comply with the [Letter] and cede their authority over this issue.” The Court considered the possibility that a decision from the Supreme Court in the near future may obviate the issues in this lawsuit. It also considered the fact that Defendants did not offer evidence that the Plaintiffs are not accommodating students who request an alternative arrangement. The Court determined that Plaintiffs met their burden and the factors weighed in favor of granting the preliminary injunction.
The Court’s Order granting the preliminary injunction was entered on August 21, 2016. No information as to whether the Defendants plan to file an interlocutory appeal is available at this time. This case, and others like it, shed light on the various viewpoints throughout the nation and demonstrate how rapidly this area of law is evolving. For more information, please contact Whitt Law Attorney Brittany Flaherty Theis.
This blog/website is made available for educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice to your individual circumstances or legal questions. You acknowledge that your reading of this blog site does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and the blog/website host or the law firm, or any of the attorneys with whom the host is affiliated. This blog/website should not be used as a substitute for seeking competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. Readers of this information should not act upon any information contained on this website without seeking professional counsel.
Recent Comments