RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina government and university officials have until Monday to tell federal attorneys whether they will stop enforcing a new law blocking gender protections, but so far compliance seems unlikely.
The law blocks protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and requires transgender people to use public restrooms that correspond to their biological sex.
Republican Governor Pat McCrory said Sunday he will decide how to respond to the US Justice Department by the deadline but sounded little interested in capitulating.
Government attorneys contend the law approved by the Legislature in March violates the federal Civil Rights Act and have ordered state officials not to enforce it.
The Justice Department is ‘‘trying to define gender identity, and there is no clear identification or definition of gender identify,’’ McCrory said on ‘‘Fox News Sunday.’’
McCrory said he was not aware of any North Carolina cases of transgender people using their gender identity to access a restroom and molest someone. That is a fear frequently cited by the law’s supporters as the main reason for its passage.
The governor said there was no comparison between civil rights laws that forbid racial discrimination and the Justice Department’s claim that the federal law also protects transgender people.
‘‘We can definitely define the race of people. It’s very hard to define transgender or gender identity,’’ McCrory said, adding that his request for more time to respond to the Justice Department was denied.
McCrory has called the law a common-sense measure to protect the privacy of people who use bathrooms and locker rooms and expect all people inside the facilities to be of the same sex.
The governor has become the public face of the law, called House Bill 2, which has been the subject of intense criticism by gay rights groups, corporate executives, and entertainers who demand the law be repealed.
Last week, the Justice Department demanded that McCrory, University of North Carolina leaders, and the state’s public safety agency respond by Monday about whether they intended to stop enforcing the law.
Repealing the law also would satisfy the attorneys, but GOP lawmakers who run the General Assembly had no plans before to do so by the deadline. The Legislature scheduled no recorded votes or substantive action during Monday’s House and Senate sessions.
North Carolina has already paid a price for the law, with some businesses scaling back investments in the state and associations cancelling conventions. The costs to state government could be even more acute.
The 17-campus UNC system risks losing more than $1.4 billion in federal funds.
Another $800 million in federally backed loans for students who attend the public universities also would be at risk if it’s found that enforcing the law violates Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on sex. The letter to McCrory said the law also violates Title VII, which bars employment discrimination.
Senate leader Phil Berger of Eden said late last week he is frustrated because ‘‘we have a federal administration that is so determined to push a radical social agenda that they would threaten’’ federal funding. ‘‘I just think the people should be frustrated and people should be angry.’’
UNC president Margaret Spellings, who started her job in March, has said that while the university system is obligated to follow the law, it did not endorse the law. Spellings said later that she hoped legislators would change the law, which could discourage promising faculty and students from coming to the system’s campuses.
A response from UNC or McCrory that’s considered unacceptable to the Justice Department could lead to litigation.
Civil liberties groups and several individuals already have sued to challenge the law, which also prevents local governments from passing rules giving protections to lesbians, gays, and bisexual and transgender people while using public accommodations like restaurants and stores.
The state law was designed to block an ordinance by the City Council in Charlotte.
Some transgender people say they’re suffering not only from the law’s practical effects, but also from the emotional consequences of the state’s regulating deeply personal aspects of their identities.
‘‘I spent 7½ years defending everyone’s freedom, just to come home and have my own revoked,’’ said Veronica O’Kelly, a transgender woman in Durham. The infantry soldier served three tours in Afghanistan and one in Iraq before leaving the Army in 2015.
In Massachusetts on Thursday, the state Senate plans to debate a bill to strengthen protection for transgender individuals. It would ban discrimination against transgender people in restaurants, malls, and other public accommodations, including restrooms and expand a 2011 law that bans workplace and housing discrimination.
A redrafted House version of the legislation includes language that appears to address concerns that a sexual predator could falsely claim gender identity to gain access to female restrooms or locker rooms.
It would allow the state attorney general to provide ‘‘guidance or regulations’’ to law enforcement about legal action against ‘‘any person who asserts gender identity for an improper purpose.’’
