Law & Courts

The New Title IX Regulation and Legal Battles Over It, Explained

By Mark Walsh — September 12, 2024 5 min read
Claudia Carranza, of Harlingen, hugs her son, Laur Kaufman, 13, at a rally against House Bill 25, a bill that would ban transgender girls from participating in girls school sports, outside the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2021.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX regulation is getting a ton of attention lately, with lawsuits, injunctions, a U.S. Supreme Court emergency ruling, and more action to come.

To help educators navigate through the twists and turns, Education Week has created a guide on the new rule, the legal actions surrounding it, and the key questions and answers about it.

What is the new Title IX regulation?

The new regulation, which took effect Aug. 1, is the Education Department’s latest interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools and colleges. The regulation clarifies for the first time that Title IX protects students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also expands protections for pregnant and postpartum students, offers stronger language about retaliation, and sets out new grievance and due-process procedures.

Why is the new regulation controversial?

The new regulation swiftly drew legal challenges from 26 Republican-leaning states, with the chief objection being to the inclusion of gender identity in the rule’s overall definition of sex discrimination and in provisions dealing with spaces such as restrooms. Those 26 states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

But isn’t the Title IX rule also blocked in some schools outside those 26 states?

Correct. Significantly, one injunction, from the federal district court in Kansas, is also in force at any school in any state attended by students or members of three groups that joined the challenge—Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, and Female Athletes United. Those lists include schools in all 24 states not covered by a statewide injunction. And the lists are not locked in stone. The groups are permitted to recruit new members and add their children’s schools to the lists. So all it takes is one child of a Moms for Liberty member for that child’s school to be added to the list. The latest update to the list was filed Aug. 28 in the Kansas district court.

(The Education Department has provided a link to those lists, which are dated July 15, July 26, July 31, and Aug. 28. Neither the groups nor the court has consolidated the lists, so interested parties should make sure to check each list for particular schools.)

Why is Moms for Liberty opposed to Title IX changes?

Moms for Liberty, which is focused on K-12 schools, and the other conservative organizations argue that the changes to Title IX infringe upon parental rights and facilitate unwanted policies in schools, particularly concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. These groups assert that they want to “save” Title IX by preventing these recent updates from taking effect.

What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about the Title IX regulation?

The court on Aug. 16 denied a request by the Biden administration to partially curb the injunctions that are blocking the Title IX regulation in 26 states and the “list” schools in other states.

In an unsigned opinion, the court said that the administration had failed to show that the bulk of the new regulation could be separated from three challenged provisions that newly define sex discrimination to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

“On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the government has not provided this court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule,” the court said in its short opinion in Department of Education v. Louisiana and Cardona v. Tennessee.

What did the four dissenting Supreme Court justices have to say?

All nine justices agreed to keep in place the injunctions blocking three provisions of the regulation dealing with gender identity. But four justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said they would have allowed other provisions of the regulation, such as those dealing with pregnancy and retaliation, to take effect everywhere.

“At this juncture,” Sotomayor wrote for the dissenters, “enjoining the application of any other part of the rule needlessly impairs the government from enforcing Title IX and deprives potential claimants of protections against forms of sex discrimination not at issue in [the challengers’] suit.”

What happens next for the new Title IX regulation?

The lawsuits challenging the Title IX regulation were filed in 10 different federal district courts, all but one of which issued preliminary injunctions blocking the rule. (One district court denied an injunction but was quickly overruled by a federal appeals court.) Those injunctions are now being reviewed by at least four different courts of appeals. Two of those appellate courts have set a date or a date range for oral arguments this fall.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, which in July declined to undo a preliminary injunction blocking the regulation, will hear broader arguments on the merits of the regulation Oct. 30. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, has said it will hear arguments over another preliminary injunction sometime during the week of Dec. 16.

The Supreme Court, in its Aug. 16 unsigned opinion, said it “expects that the Courts of Appeals will render their decisions with appropriate dispatch.” That was meant as a signal to the lower courts that they should try to move quickly and also suggests the high court is inclined to take up the merits of the regulation sooner rather than later.

But federal appeals courts aren’t especially known for deciding cases with “dispatch,” so it remains to be seen how quickly this will be resolved. The current patchwork enforcement of the Title IX regulation is likely to continue for at least half of the current school year and probably longer, legal experts say.

Events

School & District Management Webinar Fostering Productive Relationships Between Principals and Teachers
Strong principal-teacher relationships = happier teachers & thriving schools. Join our webinar for practical strategies.
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Promoting Integrity and AI Readiness in High Schools
Learn how to update school academic integrity guidelines and prepare students for the age of AI.
Content provided by Turnitin

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Nation's Largest Teachers' Union Sues Education Department Over DEI Threats
It's the second lawsuit to challenge the guidance that seeks to end diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools.
4 min read
Education Secretary Linda McMahon, left, greets Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., before President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon, left, greets Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., before President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 4, 2025. The National Education Association and ACLU are suing the U.S. Department of Education over its letter seeking to end race-based programming in schools.
Ben Curtis/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Won't Take Up Case on Schools' Bias-Response Policies
Over the dissents of two justices, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh a case about educational institutions' bias-reporting policies.
3 min read
Students walk to class on the Indiana University campus, Oct. 14, 2021, in Bloomington, Ind.
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 3 declined to take up a challenge to the bias-response policy of Indiana University, including at its Bloomington campus shown above.
Darron Cummings/AP
Law & Courts Schools May Get Relief From Overcharges After Supreme Court Ruling on E-Rate
The ruling potentially bolsters schools that have been overcharged by telecommunications companies.
5 min read
The Supreme Court building is seen on June 13, 2024, in Washington.
The U.S. Supreme Court, seen here on June 13, 2024, on Feb. 21 issued a ruling that means private whistleblowers may pursue lawsuits alleging fraud under the federal E-rate program that provides internet connections to schools.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Law & Courts Parents Lose Appeal Over School’s Gender Identity Notification Policy
A federal appeals court ruled for a district in the case of a 9th grader who did not want officials to notify parents of gender transition.
6 min read
A person holds up LGTBQ+ pride flags during the Pride Parade in New York, June 24, 2018.
LGTBQ+ pride flags during the Pride Parade in New York City in 2018. A federal appeals court has rejected a parental rights claim against a Massachusetts district's policy of supporting students' gender transitions.
Steve Luciano/AP