The Supreme Court has halted new regulations regarding sex discrimination in education in half of the country, denying a request from the Biden administration. The court’s decision, with a 5-4 vote, saw conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the three liberal justices in opposition. The regulations in question involve protections for pregnant students, student parents, and guidelines for schools to address sexual misconduct complaints.

While the regulations concerning transgender student protections were not specifically included in the administration’s appeal to the high court, they remain blocked in 25 states and numerous colleges and schools due to rulings from lower courts. These cases will proceed in the respective courts where they are currently pending. The regulations have been implemented in other parts of the country’s education systems since August 1.

Transgender rights have become a key political issue, especially for young people, as their visibility has increased. Many Republican-led states have implemented bans on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors and restrictions on bathroom use in schools, as well as limiting transgender girls’ participation in sports competitions.

In an effort to address some of these contentious issues, the Biden administration introduced a regulation in April to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, a law established in 1972 to combat sex discrimination in federally-funded schools. Despite receiving a record 240,000 responses during the two-year drafting process, the regulation does not explicitly cover sports participation, which remains a divisive topic.

Enforcement of Title IX rules regarding transgender students is currently in flux, with federal courts in Republican states blocking implementation pending further litigation. The Supreme Court majority, in an unsigned opinion, cited the interconnected nature of various provisions within the new rule as a reason for not challenging the lower court decisions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, suggesting that the broad scope of the lower court orders goes beyond addressing the specific concerns raised by the plaintiffs.