Episode 98 Gender Identity, Title IX, and Equal Protection: Status of Federal and California Law and Pending Litigation
<p>In this episode, host <a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/attorney_bio.php?id=37" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sloan Simmons</a> joins Title IX experts <a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/attorney_bio.php?id=231" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sarah Fama</a> and <a href="https://lozanosmith.com/attorney_bio.php?id=296" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sinead McDonough</a> for a comprehensive discussion regarding the status of the law as it pertains to gender identity, students, and schools. Topics covered include the current status of California and federal law and policy on point, as well as the wide-ranging scope of pending litigation poised to impact this area of school law.</p>
<p>Show Notes & References</p>
<ul>
<li>1:54 – Foundational cases impacting Title IX policy (<em>Bostock v. Clayton County </em>(2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731) (<a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB502020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Client News Brief 50 – June 2020</a>)</li>
<li>2:55 – <em>Grabowski v. Arizona Board of Regents</em> (9th Cir. 2023) 69 F.4th 1110</li>
<li>5:51 – <em>Parents for Privacy vs. Barr</em> (9th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 1210 (<a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB402020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Client News Brief 40 – May 2020</a>)</li>
<li>10:48 – <em>Roe vs. Critchfield </em>(9th Cir. 2025) 137 F.4th 912 (<a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB142025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Client News Brief 14 – April 2025</a>)</li>
<li>12:49 – <em><a href="https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/video/?20251024/25-5413/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jones, et al. v. Critchfield, et al.</a></em><a href="https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/video/?20251024/25-5413/">, Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-5413 </a></li>
<li>13:44 – <em>Regino vs. Blake (formerly Staley) </em>(9th Cir. 2025) (<a href="https://lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB172025.pdf">Client News Brief 17 – April 2025</a>)</li>
<li>14:57 – <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1266" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Assembly Bill (AB) 1266</a></li>
<li>20:00 – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/605us2r48_m648.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Skrmetti </em>(2025) 605 U.S. 495</a></li>
<li>22:24 – The law in California</li>
<li>23:25 – CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) <a href="https://www.cifstate.org/governance/constitution/300_Series.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rule 300D</a> and <a href="https://www.cifstate.org/governance/constitution/Guidelines_for_Gender_Identity_Participation.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guidelines for Gender Identity Participation</a></li>
<li>24:36 – Interactions with federal law</li>
<li>25:56 – <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Executive Order (EO) 14168</a> (<a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB122025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Client News Brief 12 – February 2025</a>)</li>
<li>27:01 – <em>Tennessee v. Cardona</em> decision</li>
<li>28:29 – <a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/title-ix-enforcement-directive-dcl-109477.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dear Colleague letter – February 4, 2025</a></li>
<li>30:32 – Federal government’s approach and reaction to CIF and AB 1266 (USDOE Press Releases: <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-launches-title-ix-investigations-two-athletic-associations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">February 12, 2025</a>; <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-launches-investigation-california-department-of-education-alleged-ferpa-violations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">March 27, 2025</a>; <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-finds-california-department-of-education-and-california-interscholastic-federation-violation-of-title-ix" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 25, 2025</a>)</li>
<li>34:00 – Related Supreme Court cases (<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-38.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Little v. Hecox</em>, Case No. No. 24-38</a>; <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-43.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>West Virginia v. B.P.J.</em>, Case No. 24-43</a>)</li>
<li>35:09 – <em>T.S. et al. v. Riverside Unified School District et al.</em>, U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-02480-SSS-SP, and order on motion to dismiss, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) 2025 WL 2884416</li>
<li>36:25 – Protections for student privacy and their interactions with parental rights</li>
<li>39:22 – <em>Mirabelli vs. Olson et al.</em>¸U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET</li>
<li>40:00 – The SAFETY Act (<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AB 1955</a>)</li>
<li>44:13 – The dynamic between <a href="https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr25ltr0401.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the federal government and California</a> post-<a href="https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/pl/ab-1955-sum-of-prov.asp#:~:text=AB%201955%20has%20three%20major,without%20the%20pupil's%20consent%2C%20unless" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AB 1955 enactment</a> (<em>United States of America v. California Interscholastic Federation et al.</em>, U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 8:25-cv-01485-CV-JDE)</li>
<li>50:26 – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-77.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Foote v. Ludlow School Committee</em>, Case No. 25-77 </a></li>
<li>52:19 – <em>Mahmoud v. Taylor</em> (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (<a href="https://lozanosmith.blubrry.net/2025/11/19/episode-97-mahmoud-v-taylor-a-practical-discussion-on-the-supreme-courts-opt-out-opinion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Listen to Episode 97 Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>) (<a href="https://www.lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB282025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Client News Brief 28 – July 2025</a>)</li>
<li>53:31 – Access to facilities</li>
<li>55:15 – <em>Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board </em>(4th Cir. 2020) 972 F.3d 586</li>
<li>56:06 – Million Dollar Question: Does Title IX protect individuals based on gender identity or not?</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: <a href="http://www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.lozanosmith.com/podcast</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><em>Disclaimer:</em></strong><em> As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.</em></p>
