Title IX rulemaking by Department of Education
✅ Overview: Title IX and the Role of the Department of Education
📜 What is Title IX?
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681, states:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
🏛️ Regulatory Authority:
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing Title IX. It issues regulations and guidance to interpret and apply Title IX through:
Notice-and-comment rulemaking (formal regulations)
Dear Colleague Letters (DCLs) (sub-regulatory guidance)
🔄 Major Regulatory Phases:
1. 1975 Regulations (original Title IX rules)
Implemented prohibitions on sex discrimination in athletics, admissions, employment, etc.
2. 2011 Obama-Era Guidance (Dear Colleague Letter)
Issued strong rules on sexual harassment and assault.
Required use of “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Emphasized victim-centered investigation.
3. 2020 Trump-Era Final Rule (Effective August 14, 2020)
Promulgated via formal notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Focused on due process for the accused.
Required live hearings, cross-examination, and narrow definition of sexual harassment.
4. 2024 Biden-Era Final Rule (Announced 2024, implementation ongoing)
Revised many 2020 rules.
Expanded definition of harassment.
Broadened protections to include LGBTQ+ students.
⚖️ Key Case Law: Title IX Rulemaking and Legal Challenges
Below are six important cases that analyze or challenge the Department’s rulemaking under Title IX.
1. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998)
📝 Facts:
A student sued her school under Title IX after having a sexual relationship with a teacher, claiming the school district was liable.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court held the school could only be held liable if:
An official with authority had actual knowledge of the harassment, and
Was deliberately indifferent in responding.
🔍 Relevance to Rulemaking:
Created a high liability threshold, influencing how the Department defines when institutions must act.
Later regulatory guidance aimed to lower this standard, triggering political and legal backlash.
2. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999)
📝 Facts:
A fifth-grade student was repeatedly harassed by another student. The school failed to intervene.
⚖️ Holding:
Established that schools can be held liable for student-on-student harassment under Title IX if:
The harassment is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and
The school acts with deliberate indifference.
🔍 Regulatory Impact:
This case became the foundation for the 2020 Title IX rule's definition of sexual harassment.
Criticized for being too narrow by later administrations.
3. G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016)
📝 Facts:
A transgender student challenged the school’s refusal to let him use the boys’ restroom.
⚖️ Holding:
The Fourth Circuit initially deferred to the Obama-era Title IX guidance, which protected transgender students.
⚖️ Later Development:
SCOTUS vacated and remanded the decision after the Trump administration rescinded the guidance (Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017)).
🔍 Significance:
Shows how agency guidance can change with administrations.
Highlights Title IX's expanding scope into gender identity protections.
4. Victim Rights Law Center v. Cardona, 552 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D. Mass. 2021)
📝 Facts:
Advocacy groups challenged the 2020 Title IX rule, especially the provisions requiring live cross-examination in sexual misconduct hearings.
⚖️ Holding:
The court upheld most of the 2020 rule, finding the Department followed proper APA procedures.
However, one provision was vacated for being arbitrary and capricious.
🔍 Importance:
Validated the Department’s authority to issue binding rules via formal rulemaking.
Demonstrated that rulemaking survives legal challenge when APA is followed, even if controversial.
5. Pennsylvania v. DeVos, No. 1:20-cv-01468 (D.D.C. 2020)
📝 Facts:
Multiple states sued to block the Trump-era 2020 Title IX rules.
⚖️ Holding:
Court declined to issue an injunction, allowing the rules to go into effect.
Found that the Department had followed APA requirements and had authority under Title IX.
🔍 Significance:
Reinforced the principle that courts will not block duly promulgated regulations absent clear statutory violations or procedural failings.
6. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)
📝 Contextual Relevance:
Though not a Title IX case, this landmark affirmative action ruling prompted scrutiny of federal nondiscrimination frameworks, including Title IX.
🔍 Potential Title IX Impact:
Agencies must now ensure that Title IX rulemaking does not use sex-based classifications in ways that could run afoul of equal protection standards.
Title IX rules regarding affirmative supports for women or trans students may be challenged in light of this ruling.
🔎 Legal Standards from These Cases Affecting Rulemaking
| Legal Principle | Case(s) |
|---|---|
| “Deliberate Indifference” liability | Gebser, Davis |
| Student-on-student harassment = Title IX claim | Davis |
| Deference to agency interpretation (Chevron) | G.G. v. Gloucester (before withdrawal) |
| Procedural legality of Title IX regulations | Victim Rights Law Center v. Cardona, PA v. DeVos |
| Limits on identity-based preferences | Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard |
⚖️ Rulemaking vs. Guidance: Why It Matters
| Criteria | Formal Rulemaking (APA) | Guidance (e.g., Dear Colleague Letters) |
|---|---|---|
| Requires public comment | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Binding legal force | ✅ Yes | ❌ Not enforceable like a regulation |
| Vulnerable to rescission | ❌ Less so (requires new rulemaking) | ✅ Easily withdrawn by new administration |
| Subject to judicial review | ✅ Fully | ✅ Sometimes (if treated as de facto binding) |
✅ Conclusion
The Department of Education’s Title IX rulemaking plays a critical role in defining the rights and responsibilities of educational institutions and students. Through these rules, the Department shapes:
How sexual harassment and assault are investigated,
What rights are given to accusers and accused students,
How schools handle LGBTQ+ protections, and
The balance between equity, due process, and institutional liability.
As seen in the cases above, courts generally defer to the Department when it follows proper Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedures—but agencies must ground their rules in statutory authority and reasoned decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments