U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves referred to the regulation as "arbitrary in the truest sense of the word," granting a preliminary injunction to block it in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

This ruling comes shortly after another federal judge temporarily blocked the new rule from taking effect in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Montana. Attorneys general in over 20 Republican-led states have filed legal challenges to President Joe Biden's policy, arguing that it is a ploy to allow transgender girls to participate in girls' athletic teams, despite the administration's assertion that the rule does not apply to athletics.

The Education Department has requested a judge to deny a preliminary injunction filed by the Republican attorneys general of Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The rule, set to take effect in August, expands Title IX civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students, updates the definition of sexual harassment at schools and colleges, and adds safeguards for victims. Title IX, passed in 1972, is a law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

The ruling by Judge Reeves elicited praise from Kentucky's Republican attorney general, Russell Coleman, who expressed concerns that the regulation would undermine equal opportunities for women. Coleman stated that the judge's order clarified that the Department of Education's attempt to redefine 'sex' to include 'gender identity' is unlawful and beyond the agency's regulatory authority.

The Education Department, while reviewing the ruling, affirmed its commitment to fight for every student. In a statement, the agency emphasized that Title IX guarantees freedom from sex discrimination in federally funded educational environments and asserted the rigor of the process used to craft the final Title IX regulations.

Judge Reeves, in his ruling, acknowledged that Title IX aimed to level the playing field between men and women in education but criticized the department for attempting to disrupt well-established law with the new policy. He argued that 'sex' and 'gender identity' do not have the same meaning and that the department's interpretation exceeds its authority to formulate regulations under Title IX.

The judge also highlighted potential violations of bodily privacy and raised concerns about the rule's infringement on First Amendment rights. Notably, he criticized the rule's requirement for educators to use students' preferred pronouns, even if it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs, deeming it impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

The ruling by Judge Reeves, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, deals a blow to the new protections, which were applauded by civil rights advocates but faced opposition from those who believe they undermine the principles of Title IX. Advocacy groups supporting LGBTQ+ rights, such as the Fairness Campaign, strongly criticized the decision, arguing that it endangers transgender children, who are already vulnerable in society.

Conversely, socially conservative organizations like The Family Foundation in Kentucky commended the judge for halting what they described as the Biden administration's "radical redefinition of 'sex'" that would jeopardize opportunities enjoyed by women and girls for the past 50 years under Title IX.

This ruling adds complexity to an ongoing debate surrounding transgender girls' participation in girls' sports teams. While some Republican-led states have enacted laws restricting transgender girls from competing, the Biden administration has proposed a separate rule to prohibit blanket bans, clarifying that the newly finalized Title IX rule does not apply to athletics.

As the legal battles continue, the fate of LGBTQ+ student protections and the interpretation of Title IX's application to gender identity remain uncertain.