College of the Ozarks Lawsuit: Why Every Court Dismissed It

The College of the Ozarks lawsuit was a 2021 challenge by the Christian liberal arts college in Point Lookout, Missouri, to a Biden administration housing directive that applied federal sex-discrimination protections to gender identity. The case, The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden, was dismissed at every level of the federal courts for lack of standing, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it on June 20, 2023.¹

What Prompted the Lawsuit

College of the Ozarks assigns dormitory housing by biological sex under a religiously informed code of conduct that defines sex as “determined at birth and based on biology, not gender identity.” That code also governs communal showers, restrooms, roommate selection, pronoun usage, and visitation.²

On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 13988, directing federal agencies to apply the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to laws prohibiting sex discrimination. Three weeks later, on February 11, 2021, an acting assistant secretary at HUD issued a memorandum telling the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to accept and investigate complaints under the Fair Housing Act based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State and local agencies receiving HUD funding were told to do the same.³

The college read the memorandum as a mandate that would eventually force it to open female dormitory rooms, showers, and restrooms to biological males who identify as female.²

What the College Argued

Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the college filed suit on April 15, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, case number 6:21-cv-03089, naming President Biden, HUD, and related federal officials.⁴⁵

The complaint raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Appointments Clause. The college also asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the memorandum while the case proceeded.⁶ College president Jerry Davis said the directive had been enacted “without any input by Congress or the public” and that the administration had “overstepped the boundaries” of its authority.⁵

Why Every Court Dismissed the Case

The case never reached the religious-liberty merits. It failed on standing, meaning the college could not show a concrete, imminent injury the courts could act on.

District Court

U.S. District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark denied emergency relief and dismissed the case on June 7, 2021, ruling that the college was not “presently being investigated, charged, or otherwise subjected to any enforcement action.”⁷ Her reasoning turned on three points: the memorandum was an internal HUD directive that did not itself impose penalties on private housing providers; any liability would flow from the Fair Housing Act and Bostock, not from the memorandum; and an injunction would not foreclose private discrimination complaints under the Act anyway.⁸

Eighth Circuit

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on July 27, 2022. Judge Colloton, writing for the majority joined by Judge Kobes, held that the college’s feared harm depended on a “highly attenuated chain of possibilities” that was not “certainly impending.” The memorandum was an internal directive to agency staff, HUD had never filed a discrimination charge against the college, and the college qualified for a religious exemption under Title IX. On the free-speech claim, the court found no “credible threat of enforcement” sufficient to show chilled speech.⁶

Supreme Court

The college petitioned for review under docket 22-816. In its May 2023 opposition brief, the Justice Department argued the college had “not alleged any past, current, or threatened enforcement of the Memorandum or the FHA against it or any similarly situated college,” and pointed out that HUD had never tried to penalize an educational institution for housing practices covered by a Title IX exemption.⁹ On June 20, 2023, the Court denied certiorari without noted dissent, leaving the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in place.¹

The Dissent at the Eighth Circuit

Judge Grasz dissented from the Eighth Circuit ruling, arguing that the majority had overlooked an injury the college had already suffered: the denial of its right to participate in a notice-and-comment process before the memorandum took effect. Grasz characterized the memorandum as either an “interpretative rule” subject to notice-and-comment under the Fair Housing Act or a “significant guidance document” under HUD’s own regulations. He wrote that forcing regulated entities to live under a “sword of Damocles” while denying them access to court until the sword actually falls was the wrong approach, and that the government’s in-court assurances against future enforcement were insufficient because the agency could always “change its mind.”⁸

What Happened to the Directive Itself

The policy the college sued to block is no longer in force. On his first day in office in January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which defines sex across the federal government as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female” and excludes gender identity. The order rescinded the 2021 Attorney General memorandum extending Bostock to Title IX and directed the HUD secretary to prepare a rule rescinding the 2016 Equal Access Rule, which had required HUD-funded facilities to house individuals by gender identity.¹⁰

HUD Secretary Scott Turner then ordered a halt to all pending and future enforcement actions tied to the 2016 rule, stating that HUD-funded programs “must offer services based on an individual’s sex at birth.”¹¹ On April 28, 2026, HUD published a proposed rule to formally rescind the 2016 policy and replace references to “gender identity” in its regulations with “sex” as biologically defined. The proposal would allow single-sex facilities such as shelters to require evidence of biological sex for placement and would preempt conflicting state or local anti-discrimination laws, with non-compliance potentially resulting in the loss of federal funding. HUD cited the religious liberty concerns of faith-based providers as one justification. The public comment period closes June 29, 2026, and the rule has not been finalized.¹²

The College of the Ozarks got the policy outcome it wanted through the executive branch rather than the courts. It never obtained a ruling on whether the HUD directive violated its religious freedom, because no court found it had standing to ask.

1
The Hill. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Christian College’s Challenge to Biden Ban on Gender Identity Housing Discrimination
2
Inside Higher Ed. Christian College Sues Over Biden Fair Housing Act Directive
3
HUD Archives. Implementation of Executive Order 13988 on the Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act
4
CourtListener. The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Joseph Biden, Jr.
5
Springfield News-Leader. College of the Ozarks Fighting Order Banning Discrimination Based on Gender Identity
6
Justia. The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Joseph Biden, Jr., No. 21-2270
7
Nebraska Attorney General. School of the Ozarks v. Biden States Amicus Brief
8
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden, No. 21-2270
9
Higher Ed Dive. Supreme Court Won’t Take Up Christian College’s Lawsuit Against Biden’s Antidiscrimination Directive
10
The White House. Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
11
HUD. HUD No. 25-026
12
Federal Register. Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Revisions