BIRMINGHAM — Alabama, along with other states, is seeking to challenge the Biden administration's proposed changes to add gender identity definitions to the protections provided by Title IX in federal court.

Title IX, the 1972 civil rights law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education, has been in the Biden administration's crosshairs since April when the U.S. Department of Education announced an update to the Title IX code.

The proposed changes, which are set to go into effect on August 1, add gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of federally protected groups. It would also eliminate female-only spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms. Refusal of teachers and students to use a person's preferred name and pronouns would also now be considered harassment.

RELATED: 'Federal government has no authority to be able to dictate these policies at the state level': AG Marshall, State Rep. DuBose decry Biden's changes to Title IX

Marshall is leading a multi-state lawsuit against the administration and has sought a preliminary injunction to block the rules from going into effect before the deadline, lest states risk losing federal funding.

Marshall and others have criticized the executive branch for using federal departments to effectively create laws without appropriately going through the legislative branch, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court's recent overturning of the so-called Chevron deference could have far-reaching applications in instances of supposed executive overreach.

The 1984 Chevron deference instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are seen as ambiguous. The Court overturned Chevron last week.

At a Monday night town hall hosted by Moms for Liberty-Alabama and LOCAL Alabama, Marshall stated that the overturning of Chevron would not really affect the states' challenges to the Title IX changes since the 1972 law lacks any ambiguity.

"Chevron deference is where the courts said until this week when it was overturned, is where you have a potentially ambiguous statute, that courts are required to defer to the agency's interpretation of what that statute means," he explained. "[It] completely abrogated the role of a judge. And also, we've seen where an emboldened fourth branch of government deep state attempt to implement policies that otherwise Congress has not authorized them to do."

"Having said that, I don't think that Chevron deference really is applicable here. Because, y'all, from the beginning in 1972, I read you the operative language, there's been no ambiguity. Sex meant biological sex then, and it means the same thing now," Marshall added.

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.