Home >

October 21, 2016
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Mike Lewis (334) 353-2199
Alabama Attorney General
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Page 1 of 1

(MONTGOMERY) – Two months after granting a motion by Alabama and 12 other states for a
nationwide preliminary injunction of the Obama administration’s transgender school restroom
access order, a Texas federal judge has reaffirmed his August 21 ruling preventing enforcement
of the illegal order in school districts nationwide.
“This week’s Texas federal court ruling keeps in place a nationwide stay of the controversial
transgender restroom order despite recent Obama administration attempts to limit the injunction
to the 13 plaintiff states while still being able to force its new restroom access policy on local
school boards,” said Attorney General Luther Strange.
“In response, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor reaffirmed his August 21 ruling granting our
coalition of states’ request for the nationwide stay protecting all school districts. As a result,
school administrators, parents and students across the country will remain shielded from the
Obama administration’s unwarranted invasion of personal privacy while we continue to fight the
illegal order in federal court.”
A copy of the court order is attached

501 Washington Avenue * Montgomery, AL 36104 * (334) 242-7300
Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1508

STATE OF TEXAS et al., ß
Plaintiffs, ß
v. ß
Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00054-O

et al., ß
Defendants. ß


Before the Court are Defendants’ Notice of Pending Litigation (ECF No. 61), filed August
30, 2016; Plaintiffs’ Notice of Pending of Litigation (ECF No. 64), filed September 9, 2016; and
Defendants’ Reply Regarding Pending Litigation (ECF No. 72), filed September 14, 2016. Also
before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 65), filed September 12, 2016;
Plaintiffs’ Response (ECF No. 73), filed September 19, 2016, and Defendants’ Reply (ECF No.
74), filed September 23, 2016. The Court held a hearing on September 30, 2016 to address the
issues raised in these pleadings. See ECF No. 76. Defendants seek to clarify the Court’s
preliminary injunction in this case.
The parties have agreed in their briefing that the injunction is directed at the issue of access
to intimate facilities. Pls.’ Resp. Mot. Clarify 3-5, ECF No. 73; Defs.’ Reply Mot. Clarify 1-2
n.1-2, ECF No. 74. At oral argument Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed that Defendants may offer textual
analyses of Title IX and Title VII in cases where the Government and its agencies are defendants,
and if the United States Supreme Court or any Circuit Court requests that Defendants file amicus

Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID 1509
curiae briefs, they may do so. Tr’g 26-28; 32-33. Thus, the remaining issues related to the request
for clarification appear to be (1) whether Defendants’ Guidelines are enjoined in total or whether
the principle of severability applies to them; (2) whether the injunction applies to Title VII
investigations, particularly as it applies to workplaces where school teachers or school staff may
or must use the same intimate facilities as students; (3) whether the injunction applies to OSHA or
DOL activity; (4) whether the injunction prevents Government agencies from carrying out their
statutory duties, which traditionally fall within their core missions to prevent various forms of
discrimination; and (5) the geographic scope of the injuction. Mot. Clarify 6-11, 16-21, ECF No.

  1. Having considered the parties’ submissions and applicable law, the Court finds that the
    parties must provide additional briefing on whether the Defendants’ Guidelines are enjoined in
    total or whether the principal of severability applies to them, whether Title VII is implicated by
    this injunction, and whether the injunction applies to OSHA or DOL activity. Plaintiffs must
    submit a response addressing these issues on or before October 24, 2016. Defendants must submit
    a reply on or before October 28, 2016.
    Furthermore, the Court offers the following clarifications to its August 21, 2016 Order
    granting the preliminary injunction (ECF No. 58):
    The Court’s August 21, 2016 Order granted a nationwide injunction. ECF No. 58.
    Defendants argue that “the geographic scope of the Preliminary Injunction [] could be read to
    exceed the proper scope of relief available to the [P]laintiffs in this case” and they contend that
    this “would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s admonition that ‘injunctive relief should be no more

Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID 1510
burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.'” Mot.
Clarify 2, 16, ECF No. 65 (citing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)); Defs.’ Reply
2-4, ECF No. 74; Tr’g at 6-7. According to Defendants, they have a right to rely on the Guidelines
in litigation before other courts that have agreed with their interpretation of sex in Title VII and
IX to mean gender identity. Tr’g at 7.
Plaintiffs argue that “Defendants are federal administrators and agencies, with footings in
every state and territory” and they are “collectively and systematically engaged in enforcing a
pervasive and unlawful rule across the country . . . .” Resp. Mot. Clarify 9-10, ECF No. 73. “An
injunction that precludes Defendants from acting everywhere[,]” Plaintiffs contend, “is quite
clear.” Id.; Tr’g at 17-19 (arguing that the geographic extent of the harm Plaintiffs suffer is
nationwide). The Court agrees that the scope of this injunction should be and is nationwide.
As stated in one of the most recent Texas v. United States Fifth Circuit opinions, “the
Constitution vests the District Court with ‘the judicial Power of the United States[,]'” and “[t]hat
power is not limited to the district wherein the court sits but extends across the country. It is not
beyond the power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction.”
Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, ß1), aff’d
by equally divided Supreme Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (June 23, 2016) (finding that a nationwide
injunction was warranted because “partial implementation of DAPA would ‘detract from the
integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress,'” and create a “substantial likelihood that a
geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective . . . .”); see also Chevron Chem. Co. v.
Voluntary Purchasing Grps., 659 F.2d 695, 705-06 (5th Cir. 1981) (directing the district court to
issue broad injunction on remand in a trade dress case); Califano, 442 U.S. at 702 (finding that the

Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID 1511
scope of an injunction is dictated by the extent of the violation, not the geographical extent of the
plaintiff class, thus a nationwide injunction was consistent with the principles of equity); Brennan
v. J.M. Fields, Inc., 488 F.2d 443, 449-50 (5th Cir. 1973) (affirming a nationwide injunction
against a national chain); Hodgson v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 455 F.2d 818, 826 (5th Cir.
1972) (“[C]ourts should not be loath to issue injunctions of general applicability . . . . The
injunctive processes are a means of effecting general compliance with national policy as expressed
by Congress, a[s] public policy judges too must carry out – actuated by the spirit of the law and
not begrudgingly as if it were a newly imposed fiat of a presidium.”); Wirtz v. Ocala Gas Co., 336
F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 1964) (describing certain FLSA injunctions as “sufficiently broad and
general to enjoin any practices which would constitute violations of the Act’s provisions”).
It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to
issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent,
uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide
injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide. Defendants are a group
of agencies and administrators capable of enforcing their Guidelines nationwide, affecting
numerous state and school district facilities across the country. Texas, 809 F.3d at 187-88. Should
the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the
Court risks a “substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”

As noted previously, “Those states who do not want to be covered by this injunction can easily avoid
doing so by state law that recognizes the permissive nature ß 106.33. It therefore only applies to those
states whose laws direct separation. However, [this] injunction should not unnecessarily interfere with
litigation currently pending before other federal courts on this subject regardless of the state law.” Order
37, ECF No. 58.

Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID 1512
Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Clarify is DENIED as they request that the Court limit
the injunction to plaintiff states.
Defendants argue that the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (ECF No. 58) should
clarify that it does not enjoin the EEOC from fulfilling statutory duties necessary to protect the
rights of individuals alleging discrimination and that it does not affect programs which combat
discrimination based on race, national origin, or disability and other activities, or limit the
enforcement of anti-discrimination statues outside the plaintiff states. See Mot. Clarify 6-11, 16-
21, ECF No. 65 (citing 42 U.S.C. ß 2000e-5(b), (e)(1), (f)(1); E.E.O.C. v. Bass Pro Outdoors
World, L.L.C., No 15-20078, 2016 WL 3397696, at *8 (5th Cir. June 17, 2016); 29 C.F.R ß 1614).
The Court CLARIFIES that these duties are not affected by the Preliminary Injunction Order
(ECF No. 58).
Indeed, the Court’s Order did not purport to alter any statute or statutory duties Defendants
may exercise in pursuit of their governmental duties under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the American with Disabilities Act
of 1990. This injunction also does not affect a school’s obligation to investigate and remedy
student complaints of sexual harassment, sex stereotyping, and bullying.
Defendants are simply prevented from using the Guidelines to argue that the definition of
“sex” as it relates to intimate facilities includes gender identity. Order 36-37, ECF No. 58. The
Court’s preliminary injunction neither affects EEOC’s fulfillment of its statutory duties, nor
Defendants’ ability to enforce anti-discrimination statutes nationwide. The injunction does not
affect those programs addressing discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or disability.

Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID 1513
Defendants are simply “enjoined from using the Guidelines or asserting the Guidelines carry
weight in any litigation initiated following the date of [its August 21, 2016] Order.” Order 37,
ECF No. 58.
Accordingly, the Court clarifies that: (1) the preliminary injunction applies nationwide; and
(2) Defendants’ core missions to combat discrimination based on race, national origin, or
disability, and the EEOC’s statutory duties are not otherwise affected by the preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 58).
The injunction is limited to the issue of access to intimate facilities. Defendants are
enjoined from relying on the Guidelines, but may offer textual analyses of Title IX and Title VII
in cases where the Government and its agencies are defendants or where the United States Supreme

Plaintiffs have also listed numerous cases that they believe are not enjoined by the Court’s preliminary
injunction in their Notice of Pending Litigation. See Not. Pending Lit. 10-13, ECF No. 64. The Court
agrees and clarifies that these cases are not included in the injunction. At oral argument, Defendants asked
the Court to restrict the injunction to litigation in which the plaintiff states are involved. Tr’g at 7-8. The
Court clarifies that the preliminary injunction attaches to Defendant’s conduct in litigation not substantially
developed before the August 21, 2016 Order (ECF No. 58), regardless of whether plaintiff states are
involved. The Court seeks to avoid unnecessarily interfering with litigation concerning access to intimate
facilities that was substantially developed before the Court’s Order granting the preliminary injunction. In
pending litigation concerning access to intimate facilities, if no responsive pleadings were filed and no
substantive rulings issued before August 21, 2016, the preliminary injunction applies and Defendants are
enjoined from relying on the Guidelines. The injunction applies in part to United States v. Southeastern
Okla. Univ., a case filed by the DOJ against a public university in Oklahoma (a plaintiff state here) more
than a year before the Court’s August 21, 2016 injunction. No. 5:15-cv-324 (W.D. Okla.). Although the
DOJ did not make the issue at the heart of this injunction (access to intimate facilities) a central feature of
the complaint, the aggrieved private party has now intervened and introduced new claims that involve
access to intimate facilities. No. 15:15-cv-324, ECF No. 23. Because litigation in Southeastern was
substantially underway before the issuance of this injunction, DOJ’s legal arguments in the case fall outside
the scope of this injunction. However, Defendants (including DOJ) are still “enjoined from enforcing the
Guidelines against Plaintiffs and their respective schools, school boards, and other public, educationally-
based institutions” (including Southeastern Oklahoma State University) and “enjoined from initiating,
continuing, or concluding any investigation based on Defendants’ interpretation that the definition of sex
includes gender identity in Title IX’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex”. ECF No. 58
at 37.

Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 86 Filed 10/18/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID 1514
Court or any Circuit Court request that Defendants file amicus curiae briefing on this issue. The
parties are ORDERED to brief the remaining issues of whether the Defendants’ Guidelines are
enjoined in total or whether the principal of severability applies to them, whether the injunction
implicates Title VII in any manner (and specifically where school employees and staff may share
intimate facilities with students), and whether OSHA or DOL activity is implicated by the
injunction. Plaintiffs must respond on or before October 24, 2016, and Defendants must reply on
or before October 28, 2016.
SO ORDERED on this 19th day of October, 2016.