Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Biden Administration's Title IX Changes Struck Down

By Kit Yona, M.A. | Last updated on

The law is sometimes said to be a living thing, one that grows and evolves to meet the needs of those it protects. Title IX, as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives funding from the federal government. Many felt it needed an update.

The Biden Administration added numerous changes to Title IX in April, 2024. These were met with a whirlwind of outrage and legal challenges by conservative lawmakers. On January 9, 2025, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sided with plaintiffs from several states, vacating the 2024 rule changes and all corresponding regulations.

An Attempt To Protect All

Through the U.S. Department of Education, the Biden Administration sought to expand Title IX protections to cover LGBTQI+ students and employees. Pregnant employees and students received coverage as well.

The changes sought were ambitious and designed to reflect the growth of society since 1972. Issues addressed in the rule change included the following:

  • Sex-based harassment was expanded to include: sex characteristics; sex stereotypes; gender identity; sexual orientation; and pregnancy-related conditions. This formalized federal protection for LGBTQI+ students and employees.
  • The definition of sex-based harassment was changed from conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive,” to either “severe or pervasive” conduct that must be considered both “subjectively and objectively offensive.” This broadened the coverage of Title IX protections.
  • Schools and colleges were given more discretion to tailor Title IX policies based on their size, age of students, and administrative structures. 
  • Schools were permitted to offer an informal resolution process (except in instances of employees facing student allegations).
  • Schools were required to assume an accused student was considered innocent when beginning an investigation.
  • Questioning at live hearings was made optional for colleges and universities.
  • The single-investigator model was to be revived. This allows an individual to serve as both the case decision-maker and Title IX investigator.
  • Institutions were to rely on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard common in civil lawsuits. The “clear and convincing” standard found in criminal trials would be an option decided on by the institution (a Title IX hearing is not a criminal matter, although certainly an important hearing to those involved).
  • Adjusted to allow postsecondary institutions flexibility in setting reasonable time frames allowing parties to review and respond to evidence.
  • The definitions and requirements of a complaint were changed to allow oral requests and no longer require signatures.
  • Schools were required to make breastfeeding rooms available for students and employees.
  • Schools were required to protect students and employees with medical conditions related to, or who are recovering from, termination of pregnancy. 
  • Narrowed the pool of employees required to notify the Title IX coordinator of discriminatory conduct to exclude confidential employees. This includes guidance counselors or sexual assault response center staff.
  • Removed written notice requirements in elementary and secondary schools.

U.S. Secretary Miguel Cardona felt the changes would offer Title IX protections to all students. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Danny Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee, disagreed.

A Bridge Too Far for Opponents

Conservative opposition to the changes was swift. The new regulations were blocked by courts in 26 states. A suit was filed in federal court with a coalition of states, the Christian Educators Association International, and a female athlete as the plaintiffs.

While the suit targeted specific rules, Reeves saw fit to issue a nationwide vacatur of the 2024 Title IX regulations, ruling them all invalid. He stated that the U.S. DOE exceeded its authority by including discrimination based on gender identity as part of defining discrimination based on sex.

The rationale was, despite the Supreme Court's holding in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects transgender workers, that holding was limited to Title VII only. Judge Reeves held that "expanding the meaning of 'on the basis of sex' to include 'gender identity' turns Title IX on its head," citing sports and bathroom facility policies.

The regulations were also ruled to have violated the Spending Clause and the First Amendment, the latter due to the requirement of using a person's preferred pronouns. Deeming the regulations "arbitrary and capricious," under the APA, the judge vacated the requirement for schools to obey them to receive federal funding.

One Step Forward, One Step Back

With a Republican-led White House and Congress poised to take over, an appeal is unlikely. While some states like California already have additional protections in place, this leaves the rights of LGBTQI+ and pregnant people in flux, with protections varying by state law.

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard