Listen to this post

Last year was a turbulent one for Title IX, and although we are just a few days into 2025, this turbulence has persisted into the new year. Yesterday, January 9, 2025, a federal district court in Kentucky issued a ruling that likely vacates the 2024 Title IX Regulations nationwide. The language of the decision is somewhat vague, and the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has not yet provided guidance on the ruling. However, at this time, it appears that the 2024 Regulations are no longer in effect anywhere in the country. As we await additional guidance from the DOE, we encourage you to contact us if you have any questions about this recent development, including what it means for investigations, policies, grievance procedures, and other circumstances in your schools.

Background

On April 19, 2024, the DOE published the final version of the 2024 Regulations (the “2024 Final Rule”), which ultimately went into effect on August 1, 2024. The 2024 Final Rule redefined “sexual harassment” as “sex-based harassment” and broadened the scope of sex discrimination to include sex stereotyping, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Shortly after the release of the 2024 Final Rule, many state attorneys general filed or joined lawsuits seeking to block its implementation and enforcement. Federal courts across the country then issued preliminary injunctions, preventing the implementation and enforcement of the 2024 Final Rule in certain school districts. Accordingly, as the 2024-2025 school year began, some school districts across the country were operating under the 2024 Final Rule, while other districts were still using the 2020 Regulations.

To make matters even more complicated, some schools in Connecticut were required to operate under the 2020 Regulations based on a Kansas federal court decision enjoining enforcement of the 2024 Final Rule in specific schools attended by the children of members of certain plaintiff organizations anywhere in the country. As a result, there were some Connecticut school districts in which certain schools were operating under the 2020 Regulations and others were operating under the 2024 Final Rule.

Yesterday’s Decision

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky found that the 2024 Final Rule exceeded the DOE’s authority under Title IX, violated the First Amendment and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and was unlawfully vague, overbroad, and arbitrary.

In defending the 2024 Final Rule, the DOE had relied on the U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), an employment law case which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexuality or gender identity. The Eastern District of Kentucky court disagreed with the DOE that Bostock’s expansion of Title VII protections also applies to Title IX. The court found that Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” is more limited than the language in Title VII, and therefore the 2024 Final Rule exceeds Title IX’s statutory authority.

The DOE also argued that even if the challenged portions of the 2024 Final Rule were found to be invalid, the proper remedy would be to sever them (i.e., halt only the implementation of those specific sections). However, the Court held that because “the definition of discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ lies at the heart of Title IX and permeates virtually every provision of the law,” the challenged provisions accordingly “fatally taint the entire rule.” The Court therefore concluded that “the entire [2024] Final Rule and corresponding regulations are invalid and must be set aside.” 

What This Means for Schools

Yesterday’s ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed by plaintiff states Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. A likely interpretation of this decision is that the Court’s decision vacated the 2024 Final Rule for all recipients of federal funds in any state, even though only five states were parties to the action. This means that the 2024 Final Rule is likely no longer in effect and the regulations revert to the 2020 Regulations. Certainly, many unanswered questions remain as we await a possible appeal and guidance from the DOE. We continue to monitor this situation closely and will provide further guidance as it becomes available.

Conclusion

While the vagueness of this ruling would pose an implementation challenge under any circumstance, the fact that the presidential inauguration is just days away makes this a uniquely complex situation. We therefore invite clients to reach out with any questions about what this ruling means for investigations, policies, grievance procedures, and other circumstances in your schools.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Julie C. Fay Julie C. Fay

Julie is co-chair of Shipman’s Education Department, and a partner in the School Law Practice group, where she represents public and independent schools in a variety of special education and general education law matters, with a particular focus on issues relating to students…

Julie is co-chair of Shipman’s Education Department, and a partner in the School Law Practice group, where she represents public and independent schools in a variety of special education and general education law matters, with a particular focus on issues relating to students with disabilities, student discipline, confidentiality, school governance and policy. Julie frequently represents schools in administrative hearings, including expulsion hearings, special education due process hearings and related proceedings, and is often called upon to guide districts in drafting policies and administrative procedures in all education law areas. As part of her practice, Julie has conducted numerous professional development workshops for clients and other school organizations.

Photo of Sarah Gleason Sarah Gleason

Sarah Gleason is a member of the firm’s School Law Practice Group, where she advises public school districts on a variety of general education, special education and labor and employment issues.  Prior to receiving her J.D., Sarah worked as an elementary school teacher…

Sarah Gleason is a member of the firm’s School Law Practice Group, where she advises public school districts on a variety of general education, special education and labor and employment issues.  Prior to receiving her J.D., Sarah worked as an elementary school teacher, and she brings that unique perspective to her practice as a school law attorney.

Photo of Tom Owen Tom Owen

Tom Owen works with schools and colleges on legal issues related to students, employees, governance, and policy. He draws on his previous career in education to offer practical legal guidance to school leaders. Tom holds a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law…

Tom Owen works with schools and colleges on legal issues related to students, employees, governance, and policy. He draws on his previous career in education to offer practical legal guidance to school leaders. Tom holds a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law, an M.A. in private school leadership from the Klingenstein Center for Independent School Leadership at Columbia University’s Teachers College, and an A.B. in comparative literature from Dartmouth College.

Photo of Erin R. Shaffer Erin R. Shaffer

Erin Shaffer handles special education, regular education, disciplinary issues and school accommodation matters.

Photo of Jessica Richman Smith Jessica Richman Smith

Jessica represents schools in a variety of education, labor relations and employment law matters.  She negotiates certified and non-certified collective bargaining agreements on behalf of numerous public boards of education.  Jessica also represents school districts in labor and employment disputes, freedom of information…

Jessica represents schools in a variety of education, labor relations and employment law matters.  She negotiates certified and non-certified collective bargaining agreements on behalf of numerous public boards of education.  Jessica also represents school districts in labor and employment disputes, freedom of information hearings, teacher tenure proceedings, student disciplinary matters, election law matters, and other legal proceedings arising in the education context.  In addition, Jessica advises schools on education policies and practices, compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, and other legal matters arising in the education context.