A district court in Alabama has blocked the Biden administration’s guidelines that force schools that receive public funding to allow trans-identifying males into girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina asked for an emergency stay of the rules, which were set to go into effect on Thursday after previously being rejected. The stay was granted late Wednesday evening.

History professor and author K.C. Johnson posted the ruling on X.

CA11 grants an administrative stay of the Biden/Lhamon TIX regs in AL/FL/GA/FL.
Accelerated briefing schedule.
Still nothing from CA10, SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/6onqtr0Rko

— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) July 31, 2024

Earlier in the day, a federal judge had denied the states’ motion to block the new guidelines, CBS 42 reported. However, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the states’ appeal of the motion, and the case will move forward with an accelerated briefing schedule.

The Biden administration’s rules have now been blocked in 26 states. Oklahoma blocked the rules on Wednesday, just one day before they were to take effect.

On Wednesday, Judge Jodi Dishman, a Trump-nominated judge, ruled in favor of Oklahoma’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the federal guidelines. Dishman issued her ruling even after numerous blue states filed an amicus brief arguing against the injunction.

In addition to the rules being blocked in 26 states, dozens of K-12 schools and universities across the country have been blocked from implementing the rules.

Title IX is a federal statute that bans sex discrimination, but the Biden administration has expanded the definition to include sexual identity and gender identification. Courts across the country have determined that this expanded definition is wrong.

On June 13, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden rules, calling them an “abuse of power” and a “threat to democracy.” His ruling blocked the new guidance from taking effect in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Montana.

“Title IX was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination,” Doughty wrote. “Such purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. Enacting the changes in the Final Rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX: protecting biological females from discrimination.”

On June 17, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rules in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. A few weeks later, on July 2, U.S. District Judge John Broomes, another Trump appointee, issued a similar ruling blocking the new Title IX rules in Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming.

Broomes’ ruling went further, however,  and included a massive list of K-12 schools and universities across the country where the rules would also be blocked. That list came from schools attended by children of the defendants in that lawsuit, Moms for Liberty, and members of the Young America’s Foundation.

On July 11, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, another Trump appointee, issued another ruling that blocked the Biden Title IX guidance in Texas, Newsweek reported at the time.

On July 24, U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel, a Clinton appointee, blocked the rules in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

That brought the total number of states where the rules can’t be implemented to 21, and Oklahoma now brings the number to 22.

The Biden administration has argued to at least implement the Title IX guidance that doesn’t include transgender capitulations – such as the provisions regarding reduced due process protections – in the states that have blocked the rules so far, The Hill reported.

In the rulings against the regulations, however, judges have noted that because of the Biden administration’s redefinition of the word “sex” to include gender identity, transgender issues can’t be carved out from the rules as a whole.

“[T]he fact that the definition permeates the entire Rule, the Court concludes that it would be a nearly impossible task to excise the remaining regulations without also eliminating those regulations that involve sex discrimination,” Judge Sippel wrote in his ruling. Other judges wrote similar statements.