Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

DEPARMENT OF EDUCATION v. LOUISIANA 

Per Curiam 

Courts  of  Appeals  for  the  Fifth  and  Sixth  Circuits  then 
declined to stay the injunctions in the interim period while 
those  courts  consider  the  Government’s  appeals  of  the 
preliminary injunctions.

The Government has now filed emergency applications in
this  Court  seeking  partial  stays  of  the  preliminary 
injunctions  pending  resolution  of  the  appeals  in  the  Fifth 
and  Sixth  Circuits.  The  Court  denies  the  Government’s 
applications.

Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that
the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief 
as  to  three  provisions  of  the  rule,  including  the  central 
provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity.  But  the  Government  argues  (and  the  dissent 
agrees) that those provisions should be severed and that the 
other provisions of the new rule should still be permitted to 
take  effect  in  the  interim  period  while  the  Government’s
appeals  of  the  preliminary  injunctions  are  pending  in  the 
Courts  of  Appeals.  The  lower  courts  concluded  otherwise 
because  the  new  definition  of  sex  discrimination  is 
intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the 
new rule.  Those courts therefore concluded, at least at this 
preliminary  stage,  that  the  allegedly  unlawful  provisions
are  not  readily  severable  from  the  remaining  provisions. 
The lower courts also pointed out the difficulty that schools
would  face  in  determining  how  to  apply  the  rule  for  a 
temporary period with some provisions in effect and some 
enjoined.

In this emergency posture in this Court, the burden is on 
the Government as applicant to show, among other things, 
a likelihood of success on its severability argument and that 
the equities favor a stay.  On this limited record and in its 
emergency applications, the Government has not provided 
this  Court  a  sufficient  basis  to  disturb  the  lower  courts’ 
interim  conclusions  that  the  three  provisions  found  likely