6 More States Fend Off Enforcement of Title IX Transgender Discrimination Rules

Four days after a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new sex-discrimination rules under Title IX against Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho (see prior posting), a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion barring enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which were plaintiffs in the case. DOE's new rules interpret the Title IX ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Intervenors in the Kentucky case are an organization of Christian educators and a cisgender high school girl who objects to a transgender female who was on her Middle School track team. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, June 17, 2024), the court in a 93-page opinion said in part:

The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended....

For purposes of Title IX, “sex” is unambiguous.  Therefore, there is no “implicit delegation from Congress” to the Department to change or expand its meaning.... But even if the word were ambiguous, there would be significant reason for pause before assuming that Congress “had intended such an implicit  delegation.”...  Education is one of the most important functions of state and local governments and is an area where states “historically have been sovereign.” ...  Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress would have intended to delegate the authority to deviate from Title IX’s original purpose “in so cryptic a fashion.”...

The major questions doctrine assumes that Congress speaks clearly when it delegates to an agency the authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.”...

The court also concluded that the new rules violate teachers' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [P]rivate and public institutions, as well as the students, faculty, and staff therein, will be forced to convey a particular message that may contradict moral or religious values....  For example, the Final Rule’s definition of harassment will likely compel “students and teachers to use ‘preferred’ rather than accurate pronouns.” ...

It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX....

The court also focused on parental rights and privacy rights, saying in part:

Although the Final Rule gestures at retaining a certain role for parents, it does not provide that parental opposition to their child’s selective gender identity requires schools to exempt that student from Title IX’s new mandate.  To the contrary, it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.

... [D]espite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity.  This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

6th Circuit: DOE's Interpretive Letter on Title IX Should Have Gone Through Notice and Comment Procedure

In State of Tennessee v. Department of Education, (6th Cir., June 14, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a "Dear Educator" Letter and accompanying Fact Sheet from the Department of Education interpreting Title IX should be set aside because they amount to a legislative rule which did not go through the required notice and comment procedure.  At issue are documents from DOE interpreting Title IX's ban on sex discrimination as covering discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive federal financial aid. The suit challenging these documents was brought by 20 states whose policies on separate sex programs are based on biological sex.  In a footnote, the majority added:

We are aware that the Federal Register recently published a final rule amending the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations.... This new rule does not moot this case for two reasons.  First, the final rule does not go into effect until August 2024.  Second, the final rule does not cover everything that is covered by the documents, like housing and athletics.

Judge Boggs dissented, contending that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, saying in part:

... [T]he Interpretation, “Dear Educator” Letter, and Fact Sheet ,,, are interpretative rules or policy statements, which are generally not final for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.....

I agree that the Documents are intended to have in terrorem effect on states and school districts such as the plaintiffs.  They clearly can be interpreted as desiring a change in voluntary policies by recipients of federal funding.  However, the same could be said of a major Presidential address or a Secretarial campaign targeting the States with speeches and public statements.

DOE Enjoined from Applying New Title IX Rules Protecting Transgender Students In 4 States

In State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, June 13, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing against four states new rules under Title IX which, among other things, bar discrimination by educational institutions against transgender students. (See prior posting). The new rules essentially apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII in the Bostock case to Title IX as well. The injunction applies to the states that were plaintiffs in the case-- Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho. The court found that the new rules violate a number of statutory and constitutional provisions, saying in part:

In applying these statutory principles to Title IX, the Court finds that the term “sex discrimination” only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment. ,,,,

... [T]his Court finds that the application of Bostock and the Final Rule’s definition of “sex discrimination” contradict the purpose of Title IX.... Bostock does not apply because the purpose of Title VII to prohibit discrimination in hiring is different than Title IX’s purpose to protect biological women from discrimination in education.  ...

Defendants thus seemingly use Bostock in an attempt to circumvent Congress and make major changes to the text, structure, and purpose of Title IX. Such changes are undoubtedly contrary to Title IX and contrary to the Law.....

Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule’s new broad “severe or pervasive” standard, which considers speech or other expressive conduct that “limits” a person’s ability to participate in a program to be discriminatory harassment, cannot be squared with Title IX....

While Title VII is vastly important, and the Court sees the merits in harassment standards set forth in those provisions, the Court cannot simply apply the same standard to federally funded educational institutions. The “harassment standard” created by the Final Rule is obviously contrary to Title IX, and Plaintiffs have made compelling arguments for how it can violate the free speech right of the First Amendment. ...

Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine. Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency....

This Court finds the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it contains ambiguous conditions and because the Final Rule violates other constitutional provisions – free speech and free exercise. Because this Court has found the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause, there is no need to discuss the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Final Rule violates the non-delegation doctrine....

This Court further finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the DOE (1) failed to address relevant factors and (2) and failed to consider important aspects of the problem. 

DOE Issues New Rules Under Title IX Protecting Against LGBTQ+ Discrimination

The Department of Education yesterday, in a 1577-page Release (full text), issued its final rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide:

§ 106.10 Scope.   Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.  

§ 106.31 Education programs or activities....   (a)(2) In the limited circumstances in which Title IX or this part permits different treatment or separation on the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such different treatment or separation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a person to more than de minimis harm.... Adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex.  

In its Release, DOE said in part:

With respect to religious educational institutions, the Department agrees with commenters that §§ 106.10 and 106.31(a)(2) do not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that the provisions’ application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization. 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3). If an institution wishes to claim an exemption, its highest-ranking official may submit a written statement to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, identifying the provisions of Title IX that conflict with a specific tenet of the controlling religious organization. 34 CFR 106.12(b). 

The Department notes that that the religious exemption in Title IX applies to an “educational institution” or other “entity’ that is controlled by a religious organization, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3); 1687(4); it does not address an individual student or employee’s exercise of their religious beliefs. As commenters also noted, however, RFRA provides that the Federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1.  

... OCR considers RFRA’s requirements when it evaluates a recipient’s compliance with Title IX. An individual may also inform the Department of a burden or potential burden under RFRA by sending an email to RFRA@ed.gov....  

With regard to commenters’ concerns related to the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, § 106.6(d) explicitly states that nothing in the regulations requires a recipient to restrict rights protected under the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. The Department, likewise, must act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

The new rules also make other changes, including changes in grievance procedures. NPR reports on the rule changes.

UPDATE: On April 30, suit was filed by a Louisiana school district challenging the extension of Title IX to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (Full text of complaint in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, filed 4/30/2024)).

Complaint Charges Sarah Lawrence College with Antisemitism Violating Title VI

A Complaint (full text) was filed on March 11 with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights by Hillels of Westchester asking OCR to initiate an investigation of antisemitism at Sarah Lawrence College. The 43-page Complaint (with 46 pages of Exhibits attached) reads in part:

We are submitting this Title VI Complaint1 as counsel for Hillels of Westchester2 ... which is acting on behalf of current and former Jewish students at Sarah Lawrence College (“SLC”) who, as an expression of their Jewish identity, affiliate with Hillel or have an affinity for Israel....

The hostile environment on campus, going back many years, forces these Jewish students to conceal their identity and precludes them from participating in SLC’s social, educational and extracurricular activities unless they disavow their affiliation with Hillel or affinity for Israel.  The administration at SLC has been well aware of this ongoing problem and not only has failed to address it, but at times has been complicit in contributing towards it.  In the painfully sardonic words of one Jewish student who transferred out of Sarah Lawrence College because of its toxic environment, “it is safe to be Jewish as long as you are openly anti-Israel.”...

... [I]n some cases SLC administrators and faculty have discouraged students from lodging formal complaints of anti-Semitism, or have delayed or “slow-walked” the complaint process – essentially, waiting out the students until they graduate or complete the school year. The complaint process itself is notoriously opaque, preventing students from knowing what measures, if any, have been taken to address their complaints.

National Review reports on the Complaint.

Title VI Claims Against Universities Proliferate Since Israel-Gaza Conflict

As previously reported, in November 2023 the Department of Education issued a "Dear Colleague" letter in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the Israeli response. The letter clarifies that even though Title VI does not specifically cover religious discrimination, many types of antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks fall under other types of discrimination covered by Title VI. The Forward yesterday reported that it has tracked 48 Title VI investigations by DOE's Office of Civil Rights filed since November charging higher education institutions with antisemitism, Islamophobia or similar discrimination, as well as ten lawsuits filed by private parties making similar contentions filed since then. It has published a detailed listing of all the investigations and cases it has tracked. The Forward explains:

When Ken Marcus took over the department’s civil rights office during the George W. Bush administration, he started looking for test cases for a new category of “shared ancestry” that would allow officials to investigate cases that touched on religion. He found one when a Sikh child in New Jersey was beaten by classmates who saw his turban and taunted him as “Osama,” a reference to the infamous Muslim terrorist.

Marcus believed that the discrimination wasn’t strictly religious in nature because the bullies weren’t intending to go after the boy’s Sikh identity. And it wasn’t obviously racial, either, since it was the turban that had drawn the bullies’ attention.

He authorized the department to investigate these types of cases under its authority to prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, creating a new category called “shared ancestry.” Every subsequent administration has agreed that these cases fall under the department’s purview.

More controversial is the question of what, exactly, constitutes discrimination against Jews based on their shared ancestry. Marcus and many Jewish advocacy groups have taken the position that anti-Zionism — opposition to a Jewish state in Israel — is often antisemitic because many Jews identify with Israel as part of their shared ancestry.

Delaware School Enters Resolution Agreement with DOE Over Antisemitism Complaint

In a January 29 press release, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights announced an agreement with the Red Clay, Delaware, Consolidated School District resolving a complaint about antisemitic harassment of a student. The press release sets out a number of incidents of harassment by fellow students. It then finds:

While the district responded to most harassing incidents the student experienced, these responses were often haphazard; were inconsistently enforced as well as inconsistently reflected in district documentation; did not consistently include effective or timely steps to mitigate the effects of the harassment on the student or other students; and did not appear to respond to escalating and repeated incidents.

OCR's findings are set out at greater length in its formal letter to the school district.

The school district has agreed (full text of Resolution Agreement) to reimburse the student's parents for past counseling, academic and therapeutic service costs from the incidents. It has agreed to widely publicize an anti-harassment statement; implement a student informational program; revise school policies; engage in training; audit complaints and incidents; and conduct an assessment of school climate.

JTA, reporting on the agreement, says:

The agreement marks the first time in nine months that the education department announced the closure of an antisemitism-related investigation filed under Title VI....

White House Summarizes Recent Initiatives to Combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia at Schools and Colleges

The White House yesterday issued a Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Takes Action to Address Alarming Rise of Reported Antisemitic and Islamophobic Events at Schools and on College Campuses.  It announces recent initiatives and updated resources from the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security to counter the increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.

DOE Reminds Schools of Duty to Protect Against Antisemitic and Islamophobic Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter on Tuesday in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. (Press release). The letter (full text) says in part:

I write to remind colleges, universities, and schools that receive federal financial assistance of their legal responsibility under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations (Title VI) to provide all students a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. It is your legal obligation under Title VI to address prohibited discrimination against students and others on your campus—including those who are or are perceived to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian—in the ways described in this letter....

Schools that receive federal financial assistance have a responsibility to address discrimination against Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist students, or those of another religious group, when the discrimination involves racial, ethnic, or ancestral slurs or stereotypes; when the discrimination is based on a student’s skin color, physical features, or style of dress that reflects both ethnic and religious traditions; and when the discrimination is based on where a student came from or is perceived to have come from, including discrimination based on a student’s foreign accent; a student’s foreign name, including names commonly associated with particular shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or a student speaking a foreign language.

Baylor Gets DOE Assurance That It Is Exempt From Title IX Sexual Harassment Rules

In a July 25 letter (full text), the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has assured Baylor University that, as a university controlled by a religious organization, it is exempt from various regulations under Title IX to the extent that they are inconsistent with the University's religious tenets.  As reported by the Religious Exemption Accountability Project, in the past many religious universities have been assured they are exempt from Title IX regulations barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, sex outside of marriage, pregnancy or abortion. (See prior posting.) For the first time, however, Baylor was also assured that it is exempt from sexual harassment rules. More specifically, it was assured that compliance with its religious tenets by the University or its students would not constitute “unwelcome conduct” under the Department’s definition of “sexual harassment” under Title IX. 

Baylor's letter requesting a ruling (full text) was filed in response to several complaints filed with the DOE Office for Civil Rights. The letter reads in part:

The University does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression per se, but it does regulate conduct that is inconsistent with the religious values and beliefs that are integral to its Christian faith and mission....

The OCR complaints at issue here allege that Baylor violated OCR's Title IX regulations by its application of its Statement on Human Sexuality, Sexual Conduct Policy, Civil Rights Policy, Theological Seminary Policy, Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, and Truett Handbook to its campus community, both as a general matter and specifically in three situations: (1) the University's alleged decision to deny applications for an official charter for Gamma Alpha Upsilon, (2) the University's alleged response to notice that students were subjected to harassment based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, (3) and the University's alleged decision to pressure University media to not report on LGBTQ events and protests in September and October 2021.

According to an extensive report on Baylor's request, Baptist News Global says in part:

Baylor Assistant Vice President for Media and Public Relations Lori Fogleman said Baylor is responding to the “expanded definition of sexual harassment” under Title IX from the Biden administration, which includes discrimination against LGBTQ people.

White House Announces New Initiatives to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities

The White House yesterday released Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities (full text). It reads in part:

Today, in celebration of Pride Month, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing new actions to protect LGBTQI+ communities from attacks on their rights and safety.  Over a dozen states have enacted anti-LGBTQI+ laws that violate our most basic values and freedoms as Americans, and are cruel and callous to our kids, our neighbors, and those in our community. The Biden-Harris administration stands with the LGBTQI+ community and has their backs in the face of these attacks....

The Fact Sheet announced new federal action, including a new LGBTQI+ Community Safety Partnership and new initiatives to deal with LGBTQI+ youth homelessness, foster care and mental health. It also announced the release of federal funds "to support programs that help parents affirm their LGBTQI+ kids."  Additionally, it announced initiatives to counter book bans, which "disproportionately strip books about LGBTQI+ communities, communities of color, and other communities off of library and classroom shelves." The Department of Education will appoint a coordinator to "work to provide new trainings for schools nationwide on how book bans that target specific communities and create a hostile school environment may violate federal civil rights laws."

DOE Updates Guidance on Prayer In Public Schools

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education issued an updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. The Guidance document points out that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires the Secretary of Education to issue such guidance to state and local education agencies, and local agencies must certify that they do not have policies that deny participation in constitutionally protected prayer. The Guidance reads in part:

Teachers, school administrators, and other school employees may not encourage or discourage private prayer or other religious activity.

The Constitution does not, however, prohibit school employees themselves from engaging in private prayer during the workday where they are not acting in their official capacities and where their prayer does not result in any coercion of students. Before school or during breaks, for instance, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or religious study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. School employees may also engage in private religious expression or brief personal religious observance during such times, subject to the same neutral rules the school applies to other private conduct by its employees. Employees engaging in such expression or observance may not, however, compel, coerce, persuade, or encourage students to join in the employee's prayer or other religious activity, and a school may take reasonable measures to ensure that students are not pressured or encouraged to join in the private prayer of their teachers or coaches.

Americans United issued a press release welcoming the updated Guidance.

DOE Proposes to Rescind Trump Administration Rules Shielding Student Religious Groups at Public Colleges

The Department of Education yesterday released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (full text) proposing to rescind two related rules adopted by the Trump Administration in September 2020. Those rules require that public colleges and universities which receive DOE grants (either direct grants or grants under state-administered formula grant programs) must not deny to religious student groups any of the rights, benefits, or privileges that other student groups enjoy because of the religious student organization’s beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership standards, or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely-held religious beliefs.

According to yesterday's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Some faith-based and civil rights organizations ... worried that [these rules] could be interpreted to require IHEs [institutions of higher education] to go beyond what the First Amendment mandates and allow religious student groups to discriminate against vulnerable and marginalized students....

There is nothing in the regulatory text that clarifies or guarantees that an institution may insist that such religious organizations comply with the same neutral and generally-applicable practices, policies, and membership and leadership standards that apply equally to nonreligious student organizations, including but not limited to nondiscrimination requirements.

The disparity between the language of the regulatory text and the Department’s stated intent has engendered confusion and uncertainty about what institutions must do to avoid risking ineligibility for covered Department grants....

If IHEs do discriminate against religious student organizations on the basis of the organizations’ beliefs or character, such organizations can and do seek relief in Federal and State courts, which have longstanding expertise in and responsibility for protecting rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, including in cases where there are complex, fact-dependent disputes about whether a policy is neutral and generally-applicable.

Daily Citizen critiques the proposal.

The Department of Education yesterday also published a Request for Information on the effect of current free speech protections required of DOE grantees.

Court Enjoins DOE and EEOC From Enforcing LGBT Anti-Discrimination Interpretations Because Of Procedural Issues

 In State of Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, (ED TN, July 15, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court enjoined the Department of Education and the EEOC from enforcing against 20 states that are plaintiffs in the case documents interpreting Title IX and Title VII as including prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. According to the court:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants’ guidance documents are legislative rules and that the guidance is invalid because Defendants failed to comply with the required notice and comment procedures under the APA.

CNN reports on the decision.

Proposed Rule Amendments Say Title IX Bars LGBT Discrimination

Last Thursday, the Department of Education issued a 700-page Release (full text) proposing amendments to the regulations implementing Title IX which bars sex discrimination in education programs or activities that receive federal funding. Among other things, a new rule, 34 CFR 106.10, would provide:

Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Catherine Lhamon Confirmed By Senate To Head DOE's Office For Civil Rights

On Wednesday, the United States Senate confirmed the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.  The vote was 51-50, with Vice-President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote. This returns Lhamon to a position she held under the Obama administration. According to Education Week:

During her first tenure under Obama, Lhamon oversaw the office when it helped draft 2016 guidance to schools directing them to allow transgender students to use facilities like restrooms and locker rooms that matched their gender identity.

20 State AG's Sue Feds Over LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Interpretations

A 20-state coalition led by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slattery filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court challenging interpretations of anti-discrimination laws by the Department of Education and the EEOC. In response to an Executive Order issued by President Biden, these two agencies issued interpretations protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in State of  Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, (ED TN, filed 8/30/2021), contends in part:

[T]he Department of Education ... and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ..., each flouting procedural requirements in their rush to overreach, issued “interpretations” of federal antidiscrimination law far beyond what the statutory text, regulatory requirements, judicial precedent, and the Constitution permit.

The relief requested by plaintiffs particularly focuses on concerns over transgender rights under Title VII and Title IX. 

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

DOE Says Title IX Bans LGBT Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights yesterday issued a Notice of Interpretation (full text) extending Title IX's non- discrimination provisions to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This reverses a DOE interpretation issued by the Trump Administration just days before the change in Administrations. (See prior posting.) The new Interpretative memo states in part:

[T]he Department has determined that the interpretation of sex discrimination set out by the Supreme Court in Bostock—that discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—properly guides the Department’s interpretation of discrimination “on the basis of sex” under Title IX and leads to the conclusion that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

Consistent with the analysis above, OCR will fully enforce Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department.

The Interpretation notes in a footnote, however:

Educational institutions that are controlled by a religious organization are exempt from Title IX to the extent that compliance would not be consistent with the organization’s religious tenets. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3).

Deseret News reports on the DOE's action.

OCR and Justice Back Off Trump Administration Policy On Transgender High School Athletes

The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has signaled a that it is reversing the Trump Administration's policy that did not permit transgender women to compete in women's high school sports. AP reported yesterday that in a court filing in a Connecticut federal district court, OCR and the Justice Department withdrew their support for plaintiffs in a lawsuit that challenges Connecticut's policy of allowing sports participation consistent with an athlete's gender identity.  Those opposing Connecticut's policy argue that transgender women who were born male have physical strength advantages in women's sports. Also yesterday, OCR sent a letter (full text) to attorneys for several Connecticut school districts saying that it is withdrawing a letter giving notice of impending enforcement that was sent by the Trump Administration. OCR says that the interpretation of Title IX in the Trump Administration letter "should not be relied upon in this or any other matter."

DOE Says Bostock Decision Does Not Apply To Title IX

 As reported by Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education has released a Jan. 8, 2021 Memorandum (full text) on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision on Title IX. While Bostock held that the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the DOE Memo concludes that Bostock does not apply to Title IX, saying in part:

[T]he Department’s longstanding construction of the term “sex” in Title IX to mean biological sex, male or female, is the only construction consistent with the ordinary public meaning of “sex” at the time of Title IX’s enactment.

The memo goes on to provide that some kinds of discrimination based on a person's homosexuality or transgender status may violate Title IX because the discrimination takes into account the person's biological sex.  Examples are employment discrimination and sexual harassment. However, in other educational situations, Title IX does not protect against sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination:

We believe the ordinary public meaning of controlling statutory and regulatory text requires a recipient providing separate athletic teams to separate participants solely based on their biological sex, male or female, and not based on transgender status or homosexuality, to comply with Title IX.

Under Title IX and its regulations, a person’s biological sex is relevant for the considerations involving athletics, and distinctions based thereon are permissible and may be required because the sexes are not similarly situated.

Disagreeing with two Circuit Court opinions, the memo states:

[W]e believe the plain ordinary public meaning of the controlling statutory and regulatory text requires a recipient providing “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” to regulate access based on biological sex.

The Memorandum also recognizes that religious exemptions under Title IX and RFRA still apply.