Federal Report: Biden Officials Defied Court Order on Gender Policy

A newly released Department of Education report is reigniting debate over how the Biden administration enforced Title IX policies involving gender identity and sexual orientation.

According to findings reviewed by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), a whistleblower’s allegations that senior Education Department officials continued pursuing certain gender identity-related investigations despite a federal court injunction were “fully substantiated.” The report recommends disciplinary action against current and former officials involved and compensation for the whistleblower who brought the concerns forward.

At the center of the controversy is Timothy Mattson, an attorney who served in the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Mattson alleged that department leadership ignored a 2022 federal court order that blocked enforcement of the administration’s interpretation of Title IX in states participating in a lawsuit against the federal government.

Court Order Sparked Internal Conflict

The dispute traces back to a 2022 ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley, who issued an injunction preventing the Education Department from enforcing guidance that interpreted Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation in certain states challenging the policy.

The newly released supplemental report alleges that rather than fully complying with the ruling, some OCR leaders sought alternative methods to continue pursuing investigations involving sexual orientation and gender identity complaints in affected states. According to investigators, regional staff who attempted to follow the court’s order were sometimes overruled or had cases reassigned to other offices.

Catherine Lhamon Named Repeatedly

The report repeatedly identifies former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon as a central figure in the internal disputes.

Investigators cite testimony from multiple employees who claimed Lhamon encouraged continued enforcement efforts despite legal concerns raised by department attorneys and regional staff. The report also references allegations that some employees were discouraged from creating written records regarding discussions about compliance with the injunction.

Lhamon has not publicly responded to the latest report. Previous reporting noted that earlier investigations conducted during the Biden administration concluded Mattson’s allegations were unsubstantiated. The supplemental review ordered later reached a different conclusion after interviewing additional witnesses and reviewing previously omitted materials.

Whistleblower Claims Earlier Investigation Missed Key Evidence

One of the most significant findings in the supplemental report is its criticism of the department’s original internal investigation.

According to investigators, key personnel were not interviewed during the initial review, and important memoranda documenting internal concerns were not adequately addressed. The report states that additional interviews and evidence gathered later supported claims that OCR leadership sought ways to continue advancing gender identity-related enforcement actions in states covered by the injunction.

The report further alleges that department officials discussed limiting written communications because such records could later become discoverable in litigation. Investigators cited witness testimony suggesting some leaders wanted sensitive discussions handled verbally rather than through email or formal memoranda.

OSC Backs Findings, Recommends Accountability

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel informed President Trump and Congress that it found the supplemental report’s conclusions reasonable and supported by the evidence reviewed. OSC recommended sanctions against officials found responsible for the conduct described in the report and also recommended relief for Mattson as the whistleblower who disclosed the allegations.

Mattson has indicated he is willing to testify before Congress or in court if asked. Meanwhile, watchdog group Empower Oversight, which represented him throughout the process, argues the findings raise serious questions about whether federal agencies can ignore court orders they disagree with.

Broader Implications

The report arrives amid an ongoing national debate over Title IX, gender identity policies in schools, and the limits of executive agency authority.

Supporters of the Biden-era interpretation argued that Title IX protections should extend to transgender students. Critics contended that the administration exceeded its legal authority by attempting to implement major policy changes through guidance and enforcement actions rather than legislation. The dispute has produced multiple lawsuits across the country and several conflicting court rulings.

With OSC now validating the whistleblower’s core allegations, the matter could move beyond administrative review and into congressional oversight hearings or additional legal proceedings in the months ahead.

Sources: U.S. Office of Special Counsel findings, Department of Education supplemental report, reporting by Just the News, Empower Oversight, and related coverage of the Title IX litigation.