Browsing by Author "Giuffra, Elizabeth Rose"

This thesis examines how the Biden Administration’s recent effort to extend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to include LGBTQ+ rights aligned with and diverged from established legal precedents and societal norms. My analysis contributes to a broader literature aiming to understand the conditions that shape the success or failure of expansions of civil rights for minority groups. I conclude that executive actions aiming to broaden protections are less likely to be enduring when they conflict with constitutional principles and do not reflect public opinion. My analysis centers on the January 2025 decision by the U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves that enjoined the Biden Administrations rule expanding Title IX protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. I use Judge Reeves’ opinion as an example of how the judiciary responds to major civil rights policy changes. I argue that Judge Reeves’ ruling reflects judicial precedent that favors a restrained approach to the expansion of civil rights. Judge Reeves declared that the Biden Administration’s extension of Title IX protections to LGBTQ+ students as an overreach of executive power, lacking sufficient legislative backing. Judge Reeves rejected the Biden Administration’s reliance on executive and administrative mechanisms, rather than legislative action, to implement significant policy changes. Judge Reeves’ opinion concludes that the Biden Administration’s proposed rule raises serious separation of powers concerns, indicating a potential usurpation of Congress’s role in enacting the law. My analysis explains why Judge Reeves’ ruling aligns with a broader pattern of judicial restraint and a consistent preference for state autonomy over federal mandates. Additionally, I find that judges are more likely to be skeptical of civil rights expansions when the Executive Branch tries to bypass Congress and thereby risks provoking legal or societal backlash. Broader public support and less controversy tend to mitigate judicial skepticism, as expansions then appear less controversial and more reflective of societal will. Judges view the expansion of civil rights by Congress as a reflection of broad public support and social consensus, whereas executive and agency action are more likely to be viewed as a form of partisan overreach. My research shows that this resistance is especially strong in the context of LGBTQ+ rights, where substantial public division and legal ambiguity confirm the judicial perception that there is a lack of social consensus on rights expansion. My research shows that the expansion of civil rights is unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny when those expansions lack legal clarity, broad public consensus, and legislative support. Courts are more likely to view the expansion of civil rights as overreaching when the Executive Branch sidesteps legislative approval or appears to compromise protections originally established for other groups under existing law, such as sex-based protections that some argue could be diluted by the inclusion of gender identity without explicit legislative endorsement. Moreover, the absence of legislative approval and risk of undermining existing protections for other groups often suggests to judges that public opinion has not yet converged to support civil rights expansion. Crucially, my findings challenge the prevalent notion that opposition of conservative judges to the Executive Branch’s effort to expand civil rights through administrative action is disconnected from public sentiment. Whether public opinion has reached consensus on civil rights expansion is actually an important feature of conservative judges’ legal analysis. Conservative responses to such administrative actions often reflect their views about broader public concerns about the pace and implications of the expansion of civil rights — concerns which my research suggests often align more closely with public opinion than is commonly perceived. At the same time, my research also examines the inconsistency in support for constitutional norms across the political spectrum, and takes into account how both proponents and opponents of civil rights expansion may prioritize political objectives over legal consistency. This thesis demonstrates that for future civil rights expansions to be enduring, they must be anchored in clear legislative mandates, supported by constitutional provisions, and backed by significant public consensus. Such grounding not only helps withstand judicial scrutiny but also guards against political backlash, as illustrated by the fact that President Trump successfully campaigned on the argument that the Biden Administration’s unilateral actions were an overreach, leading to his Administration’s reversal of these policies once back in office. My thesis demonstrates that for future civil rights expansions to be enduring, they must be carefully anchored in clear legislative mandates, supported by constitutional provisions, and backed by a significant degree of public consensus.