Federal Court Rejects Biden Administration’s 2024 Title IX Rule

Legal alert by Lamb McErlane attorneys Kathleen O’Connell Bell and Jake D. Becker.
On January 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky Northern Division issued an Order in Cardona v. Tennessee. The order, which extends nationwide, that struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rule, which took effect on August 1, 2024, stating that the rule is “arbitrary and capricious” and violates the spending clause and the First Amendment, among other grounds. President-elect Trump had previously promised to end the 2024 Title IX Rule upon taking office. It is now possible, and likely, that the Trump Administration will review all Title IX regulations after taking office later this month.
The 2024 Title IX rule was the subject of controversy and represented an overhaul of the first Trump administration’s rule that mandated how schools must respond to sexual misconduct. The 2024 rule expanded discrimination on the basis of sex to include discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Lawsuits were filed against the rule in many states, many of which argued that the Biden administration rule would punish them for state laws that restrict transgender student participation in women’s sports, hinder the First Amendment rights of students and staff, and bar schools from enforcing their student privacy policies.
The Kentucky District Court held that the 2024 Title IX rule “conflicts with the plain language of Title IX.” The Court ordered vacatur, which essentially prevents the application of the rule. While the Court’s Order is subject to appeal by the federal government, given the timing of the Order and the fact that a new administration is set to take office in a matter of days, an appeal is widely considered to be unlikely.
Unsettled legal questions remain, including questions for schools which had previously implemented new Title IX policies. Additional questions remain whether those schools will be required to apply the 2024 Title IX Regulations for complaints filed between August 1, 2024-January 8, 2025, or whether the 2024 Regulations should not be followed in any matters as the Court has declared the 2024 Title IX Rule to be unlawful.
*This alert is for educational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. Should you require legal advice on this topic, or have any questions or concerns, please contact Lamb McErlane PC attorney Kathleen O’Connell Bell or Jake D. Becker.
______________________________________
Kathleen O’Connell Bell is a partner at Lamb McErlane and concentrates her practice in in higher education law, employment law, commercial civil litigation, general premises liability defense, and hospitality law. She serves as Co-Chair of the Firm’s Employment Law Department as well as the Sports, Entertainment & Hospitality Department.
Jake D. Becker is a partner at Lamb McErlane PC and has a broad range of experience—including contact, entertainment, general business, employment, and personal injury litigation–provides a multidisciplinary wealth of knowledge from which to creatively approach any complex dispute. Jake frequently represents and counsels employers and executives in a variety of employment-related issues, litigating cases that include discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave, and accommodation-related claims across numerous industries and jurisdictions. Jake is Co-Chair of both the Firm’s Employment Law Department and the Firm’s Sports, Entertainment & Hospitality Department.
Related Articles
-
New Title IX Regulations & the Rush to Compliance
-
Federal Court Rejects Biden Administration’s 2024 Title IX Rule
Related Articles
-
Employers Still Must Provide Notice of Unemployment Compensation, Even Post Pandemic
-
Who is Eligible for Unemployment Compensation or Worker’s Compensation Benefits as a Result of COVID-19?
-
Health Law Newsletter – Spring 2017
-
United States Supreme Court Holds a Defendant Need Not Obtain a Favorable Judgment on the Merits to be a Prevailing Party under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Related Articles
-
NLRB GC Calls for Scrutiny of Non-Competes Violating Employees’ Rights
-
Five Key Things to Consider Before Executing a Commercial Lease for Medical and Dental Offices
-
The Department of Health and Human Services Publishes a Final Rule to Revamp Medicare Appeals with Administrative Law Judges
-
Breaking News – Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine – What Does This Mean?