Law & Courts

High Court Orders New Review of Michigan Title IX Case

By Caroline Hendrie — May 10, 2005 5 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A long-running legal battle over the scheduling of high school girls’ sports in Michigan entered a new round last week as the U.S. Supreme Court sent the gender-equity case back to a federal appeals court for reconsideration.

Though legal technicalities are at issue, how they are resolved could have a broad effect on lawsuits involving Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs that receive federal money.

Last July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a lower-court decision finding that the Michigan High School Athletic Association illegally discriminated against girls by making them play in “nontraditional” seasons that put them at a disadvantage compared with male athletes.

On May 2, the Supreme Court vacated that unanimous decision and directed the Cincinnati-based appeals court to reconsider the Michigan case in light of a recent high court ruling involving a broad federal civil rights statute cited by the plaintiffs.

A spokeswoman for Communities for Equity, a grassroots parents’ group based in Grand Rapids, Mich., expressed disappointment last week. The group’s lawyers predicted, though, that the 6th Circuit court would again side with the plaintiffs and require shifts in which seasons Michigan girls compete in basketball, volleyball, and other sports.

“It’s very likely that the 6th Circuit will look at this [civil rights] case and realize it doesn’t apply, and reaffirm its earlier decision,” said Neena K. Chaudhry, a lawyer with the National Women’s Law Center in Washington who represents the Michigan plaintiffs.

Edmund J. Sikorski Jr., a lawyer for the Michigan High School Athletic Association, began laughing loudly in a telephone interview last week when told of Ms. Chaudhry’s prediction.

“I’m splitting a gut,” he said. “You think the Supreme Court does this for somebody’s health? The world doesn’t operate that way.”

Association officials welcomed the reprieve, even though school administrators in Michigan have worked up alternative sports schedules for the coming school year—an effort that last week’s action threw into limbo.

Seasonal Changes?

Filed in 1998, the Michigan case went to trial in 2001 over whether the association’s scheduling decisions shortchanged girls by curtailing their access to college recruiters, high-quality competition, and other opportunities.

High school girls in Michigan play basketball in the fall and volleyball in the winter, for example, the reverse of most other states. Other sports at issue are golf, soccer, swimming, and tennis.

A U.S. District Court judge in Kalamazoo, Mich., ruled in 2001 that the association had run afoul of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, Title IX, and a state civil rights law.

The plaintiffs had used a federal civil rights law, known as Section 1983, to assert the equal-protection claim. In its March decision in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual could not sue a city under Section 1983 when a federal telecommunications statute provided a remedy for a dispute about an antenna.

School districts are often sued under Section 1983, even if other federal education statutes provide potential remedies.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the association argued that plaintiffs alleging violations of Title IX cannot pursue Section 1983 claims as well. The 6th Circuit Court panel had upheld the lower court’s ruling on the constitutional grounds and didn’t get into the Title IX claim.

It is that issue—whether plaintiffs in school-related sex-discrimination cases can assert claims under the Constitution as well as Title IX—that the Supreme Court has effectively asked the Cincinnati appeals court to consider.

The athletic association’s lawyers argue that if Section 1983 claims are allowed, then schools could be found liable for even minor differences in programs for girls and boys if officials could not show an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the distinctions.

Complying with Title IX gives schools enough to worry about, the association argues. “[E]ducational institutions have traditionally relied on compliance with Title IX and its implementing regulations to fulfill their legal obligations,” the association says in its Supreme Court brief.

A Broad Impact?

But lawyers for the Michigan parents argue that Title IX should not be the only legal avenue open, whether in disputes over sports, sexual harassment, or other areas covered by that law. The statute applies only to recipients of federal funds, they note, and some conditions that run afoul of the equal-protection clause may not violate Title IX.

A ruling against the Michigan girls on that issue, especially by the Supreme Court, could have a broad impact, they add.

“It could have far-reaching effects, and we think they could be very damaging,” said Ms. Chaudhry of the National Women’s Law Center.

Recruitment Case Taken

The Supreme Court’s action in Michigan High School Athletic Association v. Communities for Equity (Case No. 04-1021) came as it agreed to review another case that could affect K-12 schools: a dispute over a federal law that penalizes colleges and universities that limit access to military recruiters.

Some analysts said the outcome could affect the enforcement of a separate provision of the federal No Child Left Behind Act that requires public school districts to make student information available to the military. (“Military Recruiters Meet Pockets of Resistance,” April 23, 2003.)

In accepting the Bush administration’s appeal in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (No. 04-1152), the high court will consider whether higher education institutions are indirectly forced to endorse the U.S. armed forces’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward homosexuality under a 1994 law known as the Solomon Amendment.

Julie Underwood, the general counsel for the National School Boards Association, said the group was studying the case.

“I see implications for No Child Left Behind, because they really are parallel requirements,” she 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
Curriculum Webinar
Strategies for Incorporating SEL into Curriculum
Empower students to thrive. Learn how to integrate powerful social-emotional learning (SEL) strategies into the classroom.
Content provided by Be GLAD
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.

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 Why the $4.5 Billion School E-Rate Program Is Headed to the Supreme Court
The justices will decide whether allegations of overcharging under the telecom-funded program may be brought under the False Claims Act.
6 min read
The Supreme Court building is seen on June 13, 2024, in Washington.
The Supreme Court building is seen on June 13, 2024, in Washington.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Law & Courts Title IX Rule to Protect LGBTQ+ Students Temporarily Blocked in 4 States
A federal judge in Louisiana delivered the first legal blow to the Biden administration's interpretation of Title IX.
4 min read
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. Republican states are filing a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration's newly expanded campus sexual assault rules, saying they overstep the president's authority and undermine the Title IX anti-discrimination law.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and health care stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. Republican states have filed a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration's new Title IX rule, and one of them has just resulted in a temporary order blocking the rule in four states.
Patrick Orsagos/AP
Law & Courts Judge Strikes Down Title IX Guidance on LGBTQ+ Students. Here's Why It Matters
In a June 11 ruling, Texas judge said the Education Department has no authority to expand protections under Title IX.
8 min read
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017. His office sued the Biden administration in an attempt to invalidate guidance it released in June 2021 stating it would interpret Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Tony Gutierrez/AP
Law & Courts Court Backs School That Barred Student's 'Two Genders' Shirt
The court said the shirt could be understood to demean transgender and gender-nonconforming students, and administrators could prohibit it.
5 min read
ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman, left, and Liam Morrison speak at a press conference following oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on Feb. 8, 2024.
David Cortman, senior counsel and vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom, left, and middle school student Liam Morrison speak to reporters following oral arguments over Morrison's "There Are Only Two Genders" T-shirt before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston on Feb. 8, 2024.
Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom