Civil Rights ClassroomCivil Rights Expertise and Insight
Category: In the News
On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order aimed at closing the Department of Education. The Order itself does not and cannot shutter the Department, which was established by Congress. So what does the Order mean for schools?
The Texas Attorney General’s Office has had a lot on its plate lately, including the suspension and impeachment of AG Ken Paxton. But it has taken on a new challenge this week with a broad lawsuit seeking to remove Title IX protections recognized by both the Trump and Biden administrations for LGBTQIA students.
Other lawsuits have challenged the Biden administration’s attempt to extend Title IX to sex-segregated sports teams, intimate facilities for transgender students, and even use of student pronouns. But the Texas lawsuit challenges the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX to protect LGBTQIA students from any discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
If a Federal court agrees with the lawsuit, it would remove protections for LGBTQIA students that both the Trump and Biden administrations have recognized since at least August 2020. Back then, the Trump administration’s Office for Civil Rights publicly opened a case for investigation alleging different treatment of a student for being gay, which had not been the policy of OCR before. Keep reading for what you need to know about the Texas AG’s lawsuit and its potential impact on schools in Texas and beyond.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights recently released a small guidance document with a big warning message to schools, colleges, and universities: Title IX requires educational institutions to protect their students and employees from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, including pregnancy termination and recovery therefrom. That means schools cannot treat students or employees differently because they obtained an abortion. Schools must also treat abortion like any other temporary disability for hospital and medical benefits, services, plans, and policies. And, under Title IX, schools must provide leave to individuals for termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom for as long as the student or employee’s physician says it is medically necessary. The guidance, issued on the 100th day after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, does not provide new law. But it is a clear warning to schools that specific actions concerning students and employees seeking or who have received abortions could lead to administrative enforcement from OCR.
The recent Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial felt a bit like a black hole; no matter how hard I tried to pull away, the gravity eventually sucked me in. My reasons for wanting to stay away were simple: As an attorney and an expert in Title IX matters, I know how vital impartiality is in deciding these challenging cases. As a working parent and spouse, I knew I would not have the time or energy to watch every hour of testimony and review every piece of evidence. I knew it would be difficult not to base any opinions I might form about the case on my own biases and prejudices under those circumstances, particularly with the onslaught of media opinions on both sides. So best to stay away, I thought, if I can.
I couldn’t. In the end, I read many articles, watched some footage, and even listened to a few podcasts on the trial. I still do not believe I am in a position to make any of the many sweeping claims that the media and advocates on both sides of the aisle have made about the verdict. But the case does provide some important takeaways and practice tips for Title IX administrators. Here are the top three, in my opinion.
Yesterday was the first day of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month. At Thompson & Horton, we will recognize Pride Month alongside the 50th Anniversary of Title IX with free weekly webinars throughout June (Thursdays at 1 p.m. starting today!) and blog posts focused on Title IX, including LGBTQ+ issues facing schools, colleges, and universities.
Perhaps the hottest story in the Title IX/LGBTQ+ world right now involves Kiel Area School District. The Wisconsin school district has received multiple bomb threats and tremendous media attention and scrutiny regarding complaints against three eighth-grade students alleged to have created a hostile environment for a peer by refusing to use the student’s preferred pronouns. As with many things “Title IX,” untangling the truth from the fiction can be a challenge, particularly when there is so much pandemonium around the case. Here’s what you need to know about this case and how it might impact your school, college, or university.
When does a non-student have a valid claim against an educational institution under Title IX? A recent case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Arocho v. Ohio University, reiterates the factors that courts may consider. These issues are not settled law across the country, so educational institutions should work with legal counsel closely when a complaint is received from a non-student. The Arocho case is a good reminder that a non-student’s mere presence on campus may not be sufficient to attach Title IX liability to the educational institution, even for a school-sponsored event or activity.
Arocho involved a high school student who was sexually assaulted by an Ohio University employee while participating in a career day at the University through her high school. The main issue before the Sixth Circuit was whether the non-student sufficiently alleged discrimination under an “education program or activity” of Ohio University, as necessary to have a valid Title IX claim in court.
