*Alexa Thomas
I. Introduction
Team USA’s women athletes dominated the 2024 Paris Olympics, bringing home sixty-seven of the United States’ 126 total medals[1] Women’s Olympic participation has grown significantly since women first competed in the Olympics over a century ago,[2] finally reaching gender parity during the 2024 Paris Olympics.[3] Though more women around the world are participating in the Olympics,[4] Team USA’s women athletes consistently reign over the Olympic stage.[5] Team USA’s domination in women’s athletic events largely stems from Title IX, legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.[6] As the number of young athletes continues to rise,[7] a federal court’s recent enjoinment of the Department of Education’s amended Title IX regulations — an overbroad remedy that deprives many student athletes of vital anti-discrimination protections both on and off the field — threatens women athletes’ progress. [8]
II. The History and Purpose of Title IX Protections
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that “[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”[9] “Program or activity” refers to “all operations” of an institution, including athletics.[10] The U.S. Department of Education has created regulations to assist institutions in implementing Title IX.[11] These regulations mandate the compliance of over 17,600 school districts and 5,000 postsecondary, charter, and for-profit institutions.[12] While certain Title IX regulations address discrimination in athletics,[13] many provisions have an indirect impact on student athletes by prohibiting discrimination in other areas of student life, such as housing, access to classes, textbooks, and financial assistance.[14] Title IX regulations also mandate grievance procedures for alleged violations and prohibit complainant retaliation.[15] As a whole, the regulations help to ensure that institutions provide an environment free from discrimination for all students, including student athletes.[16]
III. Department of Education v. Louisiana’s Enjoinment of Current Title IX Regulations
In April 2024, The Department of Education proposed amended Title IX regulations[17] that broadened sex discrimination to include “discrimination on the basis of . . . sexual orientation[] and gender identity.”[18] Several states sued the Department of Education and courts granted preliminary injunctions based on states’ arguments that the regulations “exceeded the bounds” of Congress’s intent.[19]
Pending appeal, the federal government requested that the Supreme Court issue a partial stay of the injunctions.[20] The Supreme Court unanimously held that states were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to the disputed regulations;[21] however, in a 5-4 split, the majority denied the Government’s request for partial stay.[22] Given the new definition of sex discrimination, the Court found that all regulations had to be enjoined pending further litigation because the disputed regulations were not “readily severable” from the remaining provisions as to make a partial stay practicable.[23]
Four Justices dissented in part,[24] arguing the majority’s decision enjoined regulations bearing “no apparent relationship” to the litigation,[25] including provisions related to pregnant students, restrictions on marital status inquiries, and protections against retaliation for complainants.[26] The dissent further argued that injunctive relief should not be “more burdensome than necessary,” and that because plaintiffs’ injuries only flowed from disputed regulations, enjoining all of the amended regulations would be “overbroad” relief.[27] The dissent noted that enjoining all regulations would deprive students of updated guidance related to their rights under Title IX.[28] Ultimately, the dissenting Justices concluded that only tailored relief would redress injury without depriving the public of the other provisions.[29]
IV. Analysis
The dissent’s concerns about overbroad relief are neither unwarranted nor unrealized. Since the first injunction was issued in June 2024,[30] schools in forty-six states have halted implementation of the 2024 amended Title IX regulations, caught between crafting policy pursuant to amended regulations and enforcing policy based on outdated regulations.[31]
Schools are floundering in the wake of this injunction. A Wisconsin public school district was told that, despite the injunction, removing language related to gender identity and sexual orientation could put their district at risk of losing federal funding.[32] In Pennsylvania, schools have revised policies at the ready, but are delaying implementation indefinitely.[33] A university in New Mexico is enforcing policy based on the amended regulations on two of its campuses, but not on the third.[34] A Title IX coordinator in Wyoming expressed concerns that the Department of Education had not sent them any communications about the pending lawsuits or how to proceed.[35]
The lack of national uniformity in implementing Title IX regulations affects students’ rights, especially women’s rights, under Title IX in schools around the country.[36] The undisputed, enjoined amendments referenced in the dissent provide important anti-discrimination guidance for various aspects of student life.[37] By interfering with women student athletes’ protections under federal law via a broad and indefinite injunction, courts risk jeopardizing the progress made under Title IX, which has given women athletes the resources necessary to compete on the world stage at athletic competitions like the Olympics.[38]
V. Conclusion
If the entirety of the amended Title IX regulations continue to be enjoined by the courts, implementation of policies in line with these regulations may be delayed, or even halted indefinitely, which would affect the protections of students in many states.[39] The consequent uncertainty of a permanent injunction affects schools’ ability to enforce effective anti-discrimination policies.[40] Without the benefits of a more restrained injunction, women students around the country will be subject to less protection under Title IX, including student athletes who rely on Title IX protections to ensure equal treatment on and off the field.[41]
*Alexa Thomas is a second-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she is a Staff Editor for Volume 54 of University of Baltimore Law Review, a Legal Writing Fellow, a Distinguished Scholar of the Royal Graham Shannonhouse III Honor Society, a Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Lawyering Skills, and a competing member of the University of Baltimore Trial Team. Prior to law school, Alexa received her degree in Legal Studies from Stevenson University and gained experience in education law and policy. Alexa is excited to be joining McGuireWoods, LLP as a Summer Associate in 2025 in their Baltimore office.
[1] Rachel Treisman, Team USA has Women to Thank for More Than Half of its Olympic Medals, N.P.R. (Aug. 12, 2024, 11:49 AM), https://www.npr.org/2024/08/12/nx-s1-5072047/us-women-olympic-medals.
[2] See Factsheet: Women in the Olympic Movement, Int’l Olympic Comm. 6 (Apr. 18, 2024), https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Olympic-Movement/Factsheets/Women-in-the-Olympic-Movement.pdf.
[3] Paris 2024: The First Games to Achieve Full Gender Parity, Int’l Olympic Comm. (Mar. 8, 2023), https://olympics.com/en/news/paris-2024-first-games-to-achieve-full-gender-parity.
[4] See id.
[5] See Treisman, supra note 1.
[6] Title IX and the Rise of Female Athletes in America, Women’s Sports Found. (Sept. 2, 2016), https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/education/title-ix-and-the-rise-of-female-athletes-in-america/ (“[The United States has] the largest base of athletic development. Our women are going to dominate, not only because of their legal rights but because women in other parts of the world are discriminated against.”).
[7] See Participation in High School Sports Tops Eight Million for First Time in 2023-24, Nat’l Fed’n of State High Sch. Ass’n (Sept. 10, 2024), https://nfhs.org/articles/participation-in-high-school-sports-tops-eight-million-for-first-time-in-2023-24.
[8] See discussion infra Sections III, IV.
[9] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681 (West).
[10] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1687 (West).
[11] See generally 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.1–82 (“The purpose of this part is to effectuate Title IX, which is designed to eliminate . . . discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”)
[12] See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681(c) (West); Title IX and Sex Discrimination, Off. of C.R., U.S. Dep’t of Ed. (last modified Aug. 20, 2021), https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html.
[13] See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a).
[14] See id. § 106.31–48.
[15] See id. § 106.45–46; 71.
[16] See id. § 106.1.
[17] See Sex Discrimination: Overview of the Law, U.S. Dep’t of Ed. (last modified Oct. 17, 2024), https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/sexoverview.html.
[18] 34 C.F.R. § 106.10.
[19] Dep’t of Educ. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. 866, 867 (2024).
[20] Id. at 868.
[21] Id. at 867.
[22] Id. at 868.
[23] Id. at 867–68.
[24] Id. at 868 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
[25] Id. at 869.
[26] Id. at 874.
[27] Id. at 869.
[28] Id. at 875–76.
[29] Id. at 876.
[30] Louisiana v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 3:24-CV-00563, 2024 WL 2978786, at *9 (W.D. La. Jun. 13, 2024).
[31] See supra note 17.
[32] Corrinne Hess, New Title IX Regulations Leave Wisconsin School Districts in Limbo, at Risk of Losing Millions in Federal Funds, Wis. Pub. Radio (Aug. 29, 2024), https://www.wpr.org/news/new-title-ix-regulations-leave-wisconsin-school-districts-in-limbo-at-risk-of-losing-millions-in-federal-funds (“[The] District attorney . . . explained not being in full compliance could result in the district losing $5.5 million in federal funding.”).
[33] Susan Jones, New Title IX Regulations on Hold Here Because of Court Ruling, Univ. of Pitt. Univ. times (Aug. 22, 2024), https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/new-title-ix-regulations (stating that the school is in “a holding pattern” until the injunction is lifted).
[34] Susan Dunlap, Patchwork of New Title IX Rules are in Effect with No End in Sight, N.M. Pol. Report (Aug. 29, 2024), https://nmpoliticalreport.com/issues/women/patchwork-of-new-title-ix-rules-are-in-effect-with-no-end-in-sight/ (“New Mexico colleges and K-12 schools implemented the rule on August 1 and all schools were expecting to do so uniformly because New Mexico was not a party to any of the lawsuits. But because of the expanded injunction . . . Eastern New Mexico University’s Roswell campus . . . cannot implement the new rules.”).
[35] Naaz Modan, Confused, Upset, Exhausted: Frustrations Mount Over Title IX Rule Rollout, K-12 Dive (July 26, 2024), https://www.k12dive.com/news/districts-injunctions-title-ix-guidance-education-department/722527/. (“[R]ecognition from the Department of Ed that we’re sort of in a holding pattern here . . . would be very helpful.”).
[36] See Dep’t of Educ. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. 866, 868–76 (2024) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting); supra notes 32–35 and accompanying text.
[37] See Dep’t of Educ. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. at 874.
[38] See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
[39] See supra note 17.
[40] See supra Section IV.
[41] See supra Sections II, IV.
University of Baltimore Law Review 