The Department of Education announced Friday that it will revert to the 2020 Title IX regulations, a move that undoes changes made in 2024 under President Joe Biden's interpretation of the controversial law.
Fox News reported that the decision aims to reinforce distinctions of biological sex alongside strengthening due process protections and supporting free speech on university campuses.
Title IX is a federal law enacted in 1972, prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or education program receiving federal financial assistance.
The latest development brings about a significant shift in its application with the Education Department reinstating the 2020 rules established during Trump's presidency.
President Biden's 2024 amendments had expanded the definition of "sex" under Title IX to include gender identity and sexual orientation.
This interpretation was intended to extend the protection against discrimination to a broader spectrum of students, aligning federal regulations with evolving societal views on gender.
However, Biden's changes faced legal hurdles. On June 13, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction against this expansion. The court case highlighted concerns over executive agencies' influence in modifying legislative intents through regulatory changes.
The ongoing legal battles culminated on January 9, 2025, when Chief Judge Danny Reeves from the Eastern District Court of Kentucky ruled against Biden's 2024 Title IX revision. The judge emphasized that understanding "sex" within the historical context of Title IX refers strictly to biological male and female distinctions.
"This decision clearly reinforces that the phrase 'on the basis of sex' pertains solely to biological differences," Judge Reeves elaborated in his ruling. By returning to the previous interpretation, the court underscored a more traditional definition of sex as understood when Title IX was originally drafted in 1972.
Following the court's decision, the Department of Education issued a statement highlighting its renewed commitment to uphold the rights and opportunities for all students, especially women and girls, in educational settings.
Craig Trainor, a spokesperson for the Department, articulated that returning to earlier Title IX directives allows for protecting women’s rights more effectively.
He stated, "The department aims to guarantee equality of opportunity while also ensuring that women and girls have access to secure and distinct facilities and activities in educational environments."
Trainor also criticized the previous administration's adjustments, describing them as an “unlawful abuse of regulatory power." He asserted that such attempts overlooked fundamental distinctions recognized under Title IX.
Critics and supporters have voiced their opinions following the Education Department's announcement. Riley Gaines, a noted advocator for separating sexual categories in sports and education, applauded the decision. Gaines reiterated the original intent behind the law, expressing relief at the end of what she referred to as Biden's "illegal administrative rewrite."
Betsey DeVos, who served as Secretary of Education under Trump, also expressed her approval, emphasizing that "common sense" had been restored with this latest development. Her comments reflected a sentiment shared by many who advocated for the previous administration's approach to Title IX.
Educational institutions across the nation will need to reassess their compliance with the updated regulations to avoid risking federal funding. The change signals schools to revisit their policies concerning sex-based discrimination to align with the restored 2020 definition.
The Title IX reversal reflects broader conversations about gender identity, the scope of federal powers in education policy, and the balance between inclusive policies versus maintaining traditional understandings of sex.
This shift is likely to shape ongoing discussions around the role and responsibilities of educational institutions in safeguarding student rights amidst this regulatory landscape.
