NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0150n.06 No. 24-5588 UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) FILED STATE OF TENNESSEE; COMMONWEALTH Mar 18, 2025 ) OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk INDIANA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ) STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN CHRISTIAN EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY INTERNATIONAL; A.C., by her next friend and ) mother, Abigail Cross, ) Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ORDER ) v. ) ) LINDA MCMAHON, in her official capacity as ) Secretary of Education; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendants-Appellants. )

Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

The United States Department of Education and Secretary of Education appealed interlocutory the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the Department from enforcing its Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (Apr. 29, 2024) (codified at 34 C.F.R. § 106.1 et seq.). To mitigate harm to the parties, a panel of our court expedited this appeal, set an accelerated briefing schedule, and directed the Clerk of Court to schedule oral argument for the court’s next sitting. Tennessee v. Cardona, 2024 WL 3453880, at *5 (6th Cir. July 17, 2024). Shortly after we heard argument and while we were still considering this preliminary-injunction appeal, the district No. 24-5588, Tennessee et al. v. McMahon et al.

court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff states and private intervenors. Tennessee v. Cardona, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 63795, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2025). The entry of that final judgment, which defendants did not appeal, renders this interlocutory appeal moot. See, e.g., Harper ex rel. Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 549 U.S. 1262 (2007) (mem.); Adams v. Baker, 951 F.3d 428, 429 (6th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that a district court’s entry of final judgment during a pending preliminary-injunction appeal “extinguishe[d]” the interlocutory appeal).

We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Kelly Stephens, Clerk