Law & Courts

Judge Strikes Down Title IX Guidance on LGBTQ+ Students. Here’s Why It Matters

The ruling doesn’t apply to the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule, but its reasoning could reverberate as courts take up pending legal challenges
By Libby Stanford — June 12, 2024 8 min read
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal judge in Texas struck down a set of three-year-old U.S. Department of Education guidance documents that told schools the agency would use Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination, to protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The practical effect of the June 11 ruling from U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor is limited to schools in Texas, to which the documents will no longer apply. It has no direct effect on the Education Department’s new Title IX regulation issued in April, which explicitly bars schools from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

But the ruling could have broader reverberations in a prolonged legal battle over Title IX as Republican states fight the new regulation in court. O’Connor, after all, ruled specifically that the administration had no authority to expand those protections without congressional approval.

See Also

Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. The rights of LGBTQ+ students will be protected by federal law and victims of campus sexual assault will gain new safeguards under rules finalized Friday, April19, 2024, by the Biden administration. Notably absent from Biden’s policy, however, is any mention of transgender athletes.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. The rights of LGBTQ+ students will be protected by federal law and victims of campus sexual assault will gain new safeguards under rules finalized Friday, April19, 2024, by the Biden administration. Notably absent from Biden’s policy, however, is any mention of transgender athletes.
Patrick Orsagos/AP

The department issued the guidance at the center of the Texas case in June 2021, nearly three years before it finalized the new Title IX rule. The guidance was not legally binding, but districts often follow Education Department guidance to avoid legal trouble with the federal government.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office challenged the guidance documents, celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement that “Joe Biden’s unlawful effort to weaponize Title IX for his extremist agenda has been stopped in its tracks.”

An Education Department spokesperson said the agency “stands by” its new Title IX regulations, “which were crafted following a rigorous process to give complete effect to the Title IX statutory guarantee that no person experiences sex discrimination in federally-funded education.”

In his opinion issued Tuesday, O’Connor said the Education Department “engaged in unlawful agency action taken in excess of [its] authority, while failing to adhere to the appropriate notice and comments requirements when doing so.”

The department wasn’t merely using the guidance documents to remind schools of their existing obligations under Title IX, he wrote. Instead, it “imposed new duties” on them. As a result, he said, the department should have treated the guidance as a regulation, and gone through the legally prescribed process for developing those.

Even if it had, however, O’Connor cast doubt on the department’s authority to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity under Title IX—a legal reading that could have a bearing on the multiple lawsuits pending against the April rule change.

See Also

In this Nov. 21, 1979 file photo, Bella Abzug, left, and Patsy Mink of Women USA sit next to Gloria Steinem as she speaks in Washington where they warned presidential candidates that promises for women's rights will not be enough to get their support in the next election.
In this Nov. 21, 1979, photo, Bella Abzug, left, and Patsy Mink of Women USA sit next to Gloria Steinem as she speaks in Washington at an event where they warned presidential candidates that promises for women's rights will not be enough to win their support in the next election.
Harvey Georges/AP
Federal Explainer What Is Title IX? Schools, Sports, and Sex Discrimination
Libby Stanford, May 31, 2024
2 min read

Consulting dictionary definitions for the word “sex,” O’Connor wrote, “the court finds that the Guidance Documents’ mandate that [schools] refrain from discrimination based on gender identity—by treating people consistent with their subjective gender identities—is directly at odds with Title IX.”

“If Congress cannot yet decide whether or not it wants to expand Title IX’s reach, there is zero reason to believe the Department may do so,” O’Connor wrote in another section of the opinion.

Why did Texas sue over the Title IX guidance?

After Congress passes a law, the federal agency charged with implementing it commonly develops regulations, or rules, that include more specifics about how the agency will apply and enforce the law. Agencies must follow a legally prescribed process in developing those, which includes issuing public notices of proposed and final rules and providing the public with an opportunity to comment on them.

Sometimes, agencies develop non-binding guidance to further explain how they intend to interpret and enforce federal laws.

The guidance at the center of the Texas case included a notice of interpretation, a “dear educator” letter, and a fact sheet the Education Department issued in June 2021. The three documents outlined the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., which said that employers cannot discriminate against employees based on sexuality and gender identity.

They instructed school districts, colleges and universities, and other education programs that receive federal funds to interpret Title IX to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the lawsuit, Paxton argued the documents were “not in accordance with the law” and were “in excess of statutory authority” because they applied employment law to Title IX and were “substantive or legislative rules that required notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The final Title IX rule revision that incorporates the content of the guidance documents is the subject of at least seven lawsuits seeking to prevent it from taking effect, including one led by Texas. Judges haven’t yet ruled in any of those cases, which claim the rule was an overreach of authority and object to the inclusion of gender identity in definitions of sex discrimination.

The Education Department’s office for civil rights expects schools to begin following the Title IX revision in August unless a court issues an injunction that blocks the rule from taking effect.

See Also

Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus. Four Republican-led states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Biden administration's new Title IX regulation, which among other things would codify protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus. Four Republican-led states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Biden administration's new Title IX regulation, which among other things would codify protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Patrick Orsagos/AP
Law & Courts Republican-Led States Sue to Block New Title IX Rule
Mark Walsh, April 29, 2024
5 min read

Biden’s Title IX rule not in the clear—yet

The Texas case is in large part about how federal agencies, like the Education Department, change policy, said Derek Black, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina who specializes in educational law and policy.

“The question becomes whether a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter or some other form of agency information is sort of a bypass of the rulemaking process, which is to say you’re really changing the rules without going through the rule-changing process,” Black said.

In this instance, the court is saying, “you guys issued this guidance, and we don’t think it’s enforceable because it’s really a rule change and you didn’t go through the rule change procedures,” he said.

The Education Department issued the three guidance documents at the center of the Texas case without any notice or public comment process. The Biden administration’s final Title IX rule did go through official rulemaking, starting with a notice of the proposed change in June 2022 and a public comment period during which the agency received over 240,000 comments before it issued the final rule nearly two years after the initial notice.

O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, is the second federal judge to invalidate the Title IX documents. In 2022, a federal judge in Tennessee found the Education Department should have used the formal rulemaking process when issuing the guidance and nullified it for schools in the 20 states that participated in the legal challenge. But that judge, Charles Atchley, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, didn’t address whether the department’s interpretation of “sex” to include “gender identity” was in accordance with Title IX.

In the Texas ruling, O’Connor wrote that the Biden administration’s use of the Bostock Supreme Court case to justify a prohibition on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation under Title IX—which it also did in issuing the April rule—was invalid. Noting that Bostock was a case about employment law and not Title IX, O’Connor wrote, “the workplace is not the same as the educational environment.”

"[W]hat counts as discrimination under one statute is not necessarily discrimination under the other,” he wrote.

Another potential problem for the Title IX revision is an expected Supreme Court ruling that could reduce the legal weight of federal agency regulations, such as the Title IX revision, according to Black, the University of South Carolina law professor.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation when a federal statute is ambiguous or unclear.

A majority of Supreme Court justices appeared in favor of overturning that principle, known as Chevron deference, during oral arguments earlier this year. That would give the Biden administration’s Title IX rule a weaker legal standing in court.

That ruling is likely to have more of an impact on the Title IX rule’s future than the Texas case, Black said.

See Also

Illustration of checklist.
F. Sheehan for Education Week + iStock / Getty Images Plus

“If the court changes the Chevron deference, that means the agency would have a higher bar to pass in terms of demonstrating the validity of the regulations,” he said.

Even then, it would be hard to imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the definition of sex discrimination it applied in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., wouldn’t also apply to Title IX, Black said.

“I think that’s very persuasive on this narrow question of what sex means,” he said.

What should schools do when it comes to Title IX?

The Texas case is only the most recent major ruling in a case related to Title IX. It doesn’t change the fact that schools in Texas and other states that are challenging the rule are in a tricky situation, sometimes balancing conflicting state and federal laws.

In a handful of Republican-led states, state officials have instructed districts not to comply with the new federal rule. And in the U.S. Senate, Republicans have launched an effort to overturn it.

The best thing for K-12 administrators is to prepare to adopt the final Title IX rule by Aug. 1, according to Title IX lawyers. That way, schools are prepared for any outcome.

“You’re not going to get another ramp-up period,” said Holly McIntush, a lawyer with the Texas law firm Thompson & Horton LLP who specializes in Title IX compliance. “So [schools] need to take advantage of the one they have now.”

Schools should consult with their legal counsel and school boards to make sure they’re prepared for any contingency and meet with the staff, parents, and other community members so they’re aware of how things might change, McIntush said.

Events

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
School & District Management Webinar
Leadership in Education: Building Collaborative Teams and Driving Innovation
Learn strategies to build strong teams, foster innovation, & drive student success.
Content provided by Follett Learning
School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Principals, Lead Stronger in the New School Year
Join this free virtual event for a deep dive on the skills and motivation you need to put your best foot forward in the new year.
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
Privacy & Security Webinar
Navigating Modern Data Protection & Privacy in Education
Explore the modern landscape of data loss prevention in education and learn actionable strategies to protect sensitive data.
Content provided by  Symantec & Carahsoft

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 Student Says Snapchat Enabled Teacher's Abuse. Supreme Court Won't Hear His Case
The high court, over a dissent by two justices, decline to review the scope of Section 230 liability protection for social media platforms.
4 min read
The United States Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024. The high court declined on July 2 to take up a case about whether Snapchat could be held partially liable for a teacher's sexual abuse of a student.
Aashish Kiphayet/NurPhoto via AP
Law & Courts What the Supreme Court's Chevron Decision Could Mean for Biden's Title IX Rule
The decision overrules a 40-year-old precedent and could impact lawsuits challenging the final Title IX rule.
5 min read
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington.
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington. The high court on June 28 overruled a longtime precedent and held that courts, not federal agencies, have the primary authority to interpret ambiguous federal statutes.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Law & Courts Religious Charter School Is Unconstitutional, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules
The state high court says the planned Catholic virtual charter school violates a state provision against aid to 'sectarian' institutions.
4 min read
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is pictured in the state Capitol building in Oklahoma City, May 19, 2014. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, June 25, 2024, that the approval of the nation's first state-funded Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, is unconstitutional.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is pictured in the state Capitol building in Oklahoma City, May 19, 2014. The high court ruled Tuesday, June 25, 2024, that the approval of the nation's first state-funded Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, is unconstitutional.
Sue Ogrocki/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Case on Transgender Youth Medical Care May Impact Schools
The justices will decide whether a Tennessee law that bars certain treatments for transgender minors violates the equal-protection clause.
5 min read
FILE - The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington, June 20, 2019. In the coming days, the Supreme Court will confront a perfect storm mostly of its own making, a trio of decisions stemming directly from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case about a state law that bars certain medical care for transgender minors, with the legal issues holding potential implications for schools.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP