Issues brief: Federal court decision on Title IX

Overview of the Court Decision

On January 9, 2025, Chief Judge Danny Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky vacated the entirety of the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. These regulations, implemented in August 2024, aimed to expand protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity within educational institutions as well as campus sexual harassment. The rule had been temporarily blocked in 26 states with legal action in various stages of action. In this nationwide holding, Judge Reeves ruled that the Department of Education exceeded its authority, deeming the rule “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of the Spending Clause and the First Amendment.

Key Points of the Ruling

Exceeding Authority: The court found that the Department of Education overstepped its constitutional authority by broadening the definition of “sex” under Title IX to include gender identity and sexual orientation as well as create a broader definition of “sexual harassment” that would have expanded not just what constituted sexual harassment but also where it occurred, including on third-party social media platforms.
First Amendment Concerns: The ruling highlighted potential violations of free speech, particularly regarding the compelled use of gender-specific pronouns (for example, by a teacher to a student), which the court viewed as infringing upon individuals’ rights.
Legal Violations: The judge determined that the regulations were unlawful, labeling them as “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of constitutional provisions.
Entire Rule Implicated: While the court noted that the section regarding pregnancy and parenting was not directly implicated, the ruling vacated the entirety of the Biden administration’s final rule as the court felt retaining this single portion would be improper and better addressed through the Executive Branch.

Implications for American Universities

This ruling has significant implications for higher education institutions across the United States:

Reversion to Previous Regulations: With the vacatur of the 2024 Title IX regulations, universities must revert to the 2020 rule established during the Trump administration. These regulations did not include the LGBTQ+ protections found in the 2024 rule and utilized a narrower definition of sexual harassment. In particular, these earlier regulations have different requirements concerning the handling of sexual misconduct and discrimination cases, proscribing a formal adjudication system with cross-examination amongst other procedural obligations.
Policy Adjustments: Universities that have updated their institutional policies and procedures to align with the 2024 regulations will need to reassess and likely revise to ensure compliance with the reinstated 2020 rule.
Impact on LGBTQ+ Protections: The vacated regulations had extended explicit protections to LGBTQ+ students. The removal of these provisions may affect university policies related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Institutions should review their non-discrimination policies to ensure they continue to support all students effectively; attention should also focus on institutional codes of conduct and other civility policies.
Impact on Pregnancy/Parenting Protections: Unlike the court’s holding with regards to striking down the expansion of Title IX to include LGBTQ+ protections, the protections for pregnancy and parenting students were not considered to be violative of the court’s stated errors with the 2024 final rule. The court even considered allowing that portion of the final rule to stand but felt that action would be judicial overreach as rulemaking is for the Executive Branch.
Anticipation of Further Changes: With the incoming Trump administration expressing intentions to eliminate gender identity provisions, universities should prepare for potential additional changes to federal guidelines and consider proactive measures to support their student communities. Additionally, many states are considering legislation that may similarly impact university’s policies and procedures and require revision and adjustments as well.

Recommended Actions

Policy Review: Conduct a comprehensive review of current Title IX policies and procedures to ensure alignment with the reinstated 2020 rules. Legal consultation would be helpful to identify where and how an institution has the discretion to provide more protections than what is articulated in (or, per this court decision, no longer a part of) Title IX. More critically, schools should expect that Title IX will remain a volatile and changing area of compliance: the past three presidential administrations have instituted significant Title IX guidance and regulations, and there is no sign that this issue will be conclusively settled in the second Trump term. Schools will need to be nimble and have the flexibility to revise and change these policies as we continue forward. Institutions that have Title IX requirements embedded in larger policies (like an overall student code of conduct or umbrella equal opportunity policy) should review how to best protect those overall systems and policies from Title IX’s likely continuing changing nature.
Training and Communication: Update training programs for staff, faculty, and students to reflect the changes in Title IX enforcement and clearly communicate these changes to the university community. Title IX response systems (i.e., reporting, adjudication) can be difficult to explain to the community in the best of times. Given that this is at least the third major shift in institutional procedures and Title IX as a whole, there is a lot of potential confusion for institutions to acknowledge and address in their community education and outreach. Communication plans on how to simply and memorably explain–and update–the university community will be a critical component of effective Title IX work. Community members can confuse an institution’s necessary compliance actions with an institutional expression of its values; it can also give the perception that the institution’s attention on such an important area of civil rights as well as public health is only motivated by compliance. Further, this is a decision that is about legal and administrative policy definitions; institutions may take a broader approach to civility and inclusivity in their education and training, so clear articulation of what is prohibited by law and what is covered by perhaps broader expectations of respectful community conduct will need to be communicated.
Support Services: Evaluate and, if necessary, enhance support services for LGBTQ+ and pregnant students, as well as continued support for students moving through the 2020 Title IX adjudication processes for sexual harassment and violence to maintain an inclusive and supportive campus environment. Schools should take this time to review internal data from the past four years of usage of the 2020 resolution processes to identify where support services need to be improved or enhanced.

Prioritizing Prevention

While the court ruling has a profound impact on institutional policies and procedures around Title IX, its focus is more on the response to incidents of sexual harassment and discrimination. As Tracey Vitchers, executive director of the national campus sexual assault advocacy organization It’s On Us, said in Inside Higher Education, “If Title IX is going to continue to be this horrible political football…we need to see schools invest in evidence-based approaches to sexual violence prevention because the ultimate goal is to ensure students have an education free of sexual violence.” If the policy volatility of Title IX can create campus upheaval, having a robust and articulated multi-year prevention and education strategy to reduce overall incidents and promote support-seeking creates institutional stability. A school’s investment in prevention shows its continued commitment to a reduction–and eventually an end–to campus sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment, assault, and violence.