Law & Courts

The New Title IX Regulation and Legal Battles Over It, Explained

By Mark Walsh — September 12, 2024 5 min read
Claudia Carranza, of Harlingen, hugs her son, Laur Kaufman, 13, at a rally against House Bill 25, a bill that would ban transgender girls from participating in girls school sports, outside the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2021.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX regulation is getting a ton of attention lately, with lawsuits, injunctions, a U.S. Supreme Court emergency ruling, and more action to come.

To help educators navigate through the twists and turns, Education Week has created a guide on the new rule, the legal actions surrounding it, and the key questions and answers about it.

What is the new Title IX regulation?

The new regulation, which took effect Aug. 1, is the Education Department’s latest interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools and colleges. The regulation clarifies for the first time that Title IX protects students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also expands protections for pregnant and postpartum students, offers stronger language about retaliation, and sets out new grievance and due-process procedures.

Why is the new regulation controversial?

The new regulation swiftly drew legal challenges from 26 Republican-leaning states, with the chief objection being to the inclusion of gender identity in the rule’s overall definition of sex discrimination and in provisions dealing with spaces such as restrooms. Those 26 states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

But isn’t the Title IX rule also blocked in some schools outside those 26 states?

Correct. Significantly, one injunction, from the federal district court in Kansas, is also in force at any school in any state attended by students or members of three groups that joined the challenge—Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, and Female Athletes United. Those lists include schools in all 24 states not covered by a statewide injunction. And the lists are not locked in stone. The groups are permitted to recruit new members and add their children’s schools to the lists. So all it takes is one child of a Moms for Liberty member for that child’s school to be added to the list. The latest update to the list was filed Aug. 28 in the Kansas district court.

(The Education Department has provided a link to those lists, which are dated July 15, July 26, July 31, and Aug. 28. Neither the groups nor the court has consolidated the lists, so interested parties should make sure to check each list for particular schools.)

Why is Moms for Liberty opposed to Title IX changes?

Moms for Liberty, which is focused on K-12 schools, and the other conservative organizations argue that the changes to Title IX infringe upon parental rights and facilitate unwanted policies in schools, particularly concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. These groups assert that they want to “save” Title IX by preventing these recent updates from taking effect.

What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about the Title IX regulation?

The court on Aug. 16 denied a request by the Biden administration to partially curb the injunctions that are blocking the Title IX regulation in 26 states and the “list” schools in other states.

In an unsigned opinion, the court said that the administration had failed to show that the bulk of the new regulation could be separated from three challenged provisions that newly define sex discrimination to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

“On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the government has not provided this court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule,” the court said in its short opinion in Department of Education v. Louisiana and Cardona v. Tennessee.

What did the four dissenting Supreme Court justices have to say?

All nine justices agreed to keep in place the injunctions blocking three provisions of the regulation dealing with gender identity. But four justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said they would have allowed other provisions of the regulation, such as those dealing with pregnancy and retaliation, to take effect everywhere.

“At this juncture,” Sotomayor wrote for the dissenters, “enjoining the application of any other part of the rule needlessly impairs the government from enforcing Title IX and deprives potential claimants of protections against forms of sex discrimination not at issue in [the challengers’] suit.”

What happens next for the new Title IX regulation?

The lawsuits challenging the Title IX regulation were filed in 10 different federal district courts, all but one of which issued preliminary injunctions blocking the rule. (One district court denied an injunction but was quickly overruled by a federal appeals court.) Those injunctions are now being reviewed by at least four different courts of appeals. Two of those appellate courts have set a date or a date range for oral arguments this fall.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, which in July declined to undo a preliminary injunction blocking the regulation, will hear broader arguments on the merits of the regulation Oct. 30. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, has said it will hear arguments over another preliminary injunction sometime during the week of Dec. 16.

The Supreme Court, in its Aug. 16 unsigned opinion, said it “expects that the Courts of Appeals will render their decisions with appropriate dispatch.” That was meant as a signal to the lower courts that they should try to move quickly and also suggests the high court is inclined to take up the merits of the regulation sooner rather than later.

But federal appeals courts aren’t especially known for deciding cases with “dispatch,” so it remains to be seen how quickly this will be resolved. The current patchwork enforcement of the Title IX regulation is likely to continue for at least half of the current school year and probably longer, legal experts say.

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
Classroom Technology Webinar
Better Tools, Not More: What Educators Say About Teaching and Technology
Optimism is up. AI use is rising. Coherence is the next challenge. Hear what the 2026 Educator Confidence Report reveals about the field.
Content provided by HMH
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
Student Achievement Webinar
The Relationship Advantage for Attendance, Engagement, and Achievement
Relationship-building goes beyond back-to-school. Get practical ideas from district leaders and educators to strengthen student connections.
School & District Management Webinar EdMarketer Quick Hit: Build Campaigns That Engage K-12 Leaders
We’ll share what’s resonating with Education Week’s K-12 audience based on user behavior across platforms and other proprietary data.

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 Trump Says Title IX Excludes Trans Girls. The Supreme Court Could Weigh In Next
It's the flip side of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding state laws that bar transgender girls.
7 min read
Becky Pepper-Jackson prepares to throw a discus Tuesday, April 7, 2026, at Bridgeport High School in Bridgeport, W.VA.
Becky Pepper-Jackson prepares to throw a discus on April 7, 2026, at Bridgeport High School in Bridgeport, W.Va. Jackson's challenge of a West Virginia law barring transgender girls from girls' athletic teams ended up before the Supreme Court, which upheld the state's law. Now, the court could take on the question of whether Title IX requires that transgender athletes be excluded from teams that match their gender identity.
John Raby/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over School's Ban of 'Let's Go Brandon' Sweatshirts
The justices left in place a lower court ruling that schools can ban the phrase over its veiled vulgarity.
1 min read
A spectator wears a Let's Go Brandon shirt in the stands during the first half of the Hula Bowl NCAA college football game, Jan. 15, 2022, in Orlando, Fla.
A spectator wears a Let's Go Brandon shirt in the stands during the first half of the Hula Bowl NCAA college football game, Jan. 15, 2022, in Orlando, Fla.
Phelan M. Ebenhack/AP
Law & Courts Ten Commandments in Classrooms: 'Passive Display' or Part of the Curriculum?
Five states now have laws that require or authorize Ten Commandments displays in public schools.
9 min read
A Ten Commandments poster is seen with boxes of others before they were delivered to local public schools in New Braunfels, Texas, Monday, Nov. 17, 2025.
A Ten Commandments poster is seen with boxes of others before they were delivered to local public schools in New Braunfels, Texas, on Nov. 17, 2025. Texas is one of four states that now require the commandments be displayed in public school classrooms.
Eric Gay/AP
Law & Courts Federal Court Ruling Paves Way for Jewish Charter School in Oklahoma
A federal judge cleared the way for a Florida-based Jewish charter school network to open in the state.
Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton, Tulsa World, Okla.
•
4 min read
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 10: (L to R) Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Frank O. Bowman III, professor emeritus of law, University of Missouri School of Law arrive to testify before a House Homeland Security Committee hearing titled "Havoc in the Heartland: How Secretary Mayorkas' Failed Leadership Has Impacted the States," at the U.S. Capitol on January 10, 2024 in Washington, DC. House Republicans have started their hearings into impeaching President Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, second from left, was a defendant in a lawsuit from the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation challenging a decision from the state's charter school authorizing board that denied the group's bid to open a charter school.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images