Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Court Grants Joint Parties’ Stipulation in Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 31, 2026)

    The California State University System (CSU) sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024. After reviewing the joint stipulation from the parties, the court entered an order setting out how the case will be managed going forward. The order stipulates that within two business days of any determination by the Department that it intends to withhold funds or take other action against SJSU or CSU, the parties will provide the court with a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. CSU agrees to maintain existing policies and not treat the stipulation as a concession on the merits. The order protects CSU from immediate enforcement consequences, particularly the risk to federal funding, while allowing the court to later resolve CSU’s claims that the Department’s actions were unlawful, retroactive, and constitutionally impermissible.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the California State University System, sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-24. The complaint alleges that SJSU could not lawfully exclude a transgender athlete under Ninth Circuit precedent, NCAA rules, and federal guidance, and maintains that the Department’s findings improperly attempt to retroactively impose Title IX obligations based on a later policy shift. The complaint further alleges that the proposed resolution agreement violates both the Spending Clause and the First Amendment by conditioning federal funding on the university sending personal apologies to female athletes and agreeing to amend its policies. Plaintiff has asked the court to vacate the Department’s findings and enjoin it from (1) terminating, freezing, blocking, or refusing federal funding to SJSU; and (2) enforcing the proposed resolution agreement. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Department of Education’s OCR Resolution Agreement with San Jose State University for Title IX Violations (Jan. 28, 2026)

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has found San Jose State University in violation of Title IX for allowing “males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities.” The investigation, which began in February 2025, arose from allegations involving a student competing on the women’s indoor volleyball team and alleged retaliation against female athletes and an assistant coach who criticized the university’s gender identity policies. OCR also concluded that the university failed to promptly and equitably investigate Title IX complaints and took actions that discouraged women from participating in the Title IX process. The resolution agreement requires the university to: (1) “adopt biology-based definitions of male and female”; (2) separate athletics and intimate facilities based on biological sex; (3) refrain from delegating Title IX compliance to external entities and refuse to contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex; (4) restore misappropriated athletic records and titles to female athletes; and (5) issue personalized apologies to affected female athletes, including athletes from other universities who forfeited their right to compete against the university.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Md. (D. Md. Oct. 10, 2025)

    Memorandum Opinion Denying Request for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Maryland, sued the university for Title IX and due process violations after the university denied his request for changes to a campus Title IX disciplinary proceeding in which he was the respondent. Finding that plaintiff’s invocation of a deliberate indifference theory to challenge the conduct of a campus disciplinary proceeding “misplaced,” the court held that plaintiff was not likely to succeed on his Title IX claim since he had not alleged any fact suggesting he was sexually discriminated against or harassed, or that the university was deliberately indifferent in its response. On plaintiff’s due process claim, the court held that since none of the exceptions to the university’s sovereign immunity were applicable here, sovereign immunity precluded any chance of him succeeding on the merits. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a TRO, noting that in addition to failing to show a likelihood of success on either claim, plaintiff had also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Doe v. University of Maryland, College Park, et al., (D. Md. Sep. 26, 2025)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff, a male student at the University of Maryland, brought a Title IX reverse discrimination and retaliation claim against the university following a months-long public campaign by a female student “to brand [plaintiff] as a rapist” and remove him from the Club Lacrosse team after a university disciplinary process found plaintiff not responsible for sexually assaulting her. The court denied the university’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title IX sex discrimination claim, finding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude (1) the persistent public pronouncements that plaintiff is a “rapist,” a “sexual predator” and “dangerous to girls on campus,” constituted harassment “on the basis of [plaintiff’s] sex”; (2) the removal of plaintiff from the Club Lacrosse team amounted to a deprivation of an education benefit; and (3) that the university was deliberately indifferent when it failed to respond to plaintiff’s second complaint to the university and summarily dismissed it a month later. However, on plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, finding that plaintiff’s “mere participation as the accused in a Title IX process” was insufficient to constitute Title IX protected activity, and even if it did, there was no evidence that “the hostility [plaintiff] later faced was because of that participation.”

    Topics:

    Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Resolution Agreement with the University of Pennsylvania on Title IX Violations (Jul. 1, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education announced a Resolution Agreement with the University of Pennsylvania to comply with Title IX. Following an investigation into the University by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in February 2025, OCR found that the University violated Title IX by allowing a male student athlete to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities. By entering into the Resolution Agreement, the University has agreed to (i) restore Division I swimming records and titles to affected female athletes; (ii) issue a statement that the University forbids males from competing in sports and accessing “female-only intimate facilities”; (iii) prominently publish the statement on the University’s main website and on all women’s athletics websites; (iv) adopt biology-based definitions for the words “male” and “female” pursuant to Title IX and President Trump’s Executive Orders, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”; (v) rescind any polices and guidance that violate Title IX; and (vi) issue personalized letters of apology to the impacted athletes. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Hushen v. Gonzales (Colo. Jun. 9, 2025)

    Opinion Reversing and Remanding. Petitioners, several high school students and their mothers who were previously sued by respondent, a fellow classmate, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress following a Title IX investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against respondent, bring the current “special motion to dismiss” under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. Petitioners allege that the statements they made in the school’s investigations were absolutely privileged from use in a tort action because they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. The question before the court was “whether the doctrine of absolute privilege applies to statements made in connection with a public school district’s formal Title IX investigation.” The Court explained that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves: “(1) a determination of the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and (2) the application of current law or policy to past and present facts.” The court further explained that procedural and “due process concerns are independent of the assessment of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial.” In finding that the Title IX investigation against respondent was a quasi-judicial proceeding, and petitioners’ statements during the investigation were subject to absolute privilege, the court held that petitioners’ statements could not be used as the basis for any tort claims against them. The Court’s holding notably contrasts with the finding in Kahn v. Yale University, 347 Conn. 1, 295 A.3d 855 (2023), where the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a University’s Title IX process lacked the procedural rigor to qualify as quasi-judicial—thus, the defendants’ statements made during the Title IX investigation process were not absolutely privileged.

    Topics:

    Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    OCR Finds the University of Pennsylvania in Violation of Title IX (Apr. 28, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced its finding that the University of Pennsylvania’s policies and practices of permitting male-to-female transgender student athletes to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities, violated Title IX in that it denied other women equal opportunities. The Department tendered a proposed Resolution Agreement to the University to resolve the purported violations, giving the University ten days to voluntarily resolve the finding, or risk a referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for further enforcement proceedings. The proposed Resolution Agreement requires the University to: “(i) issue a statement to the University community stating that the University will comply with Title IX in all of its athletic programs; (ii) restore to all female athletes all individual athletic records, titles, honors, awards or similar recognition for Division I swimming competitions misappropriated by male athletes competing in female categories; and (iii) send a letter to each female athlete whose individual recognition is restored expressing an apology on behalf of the University for allowing her educational experience in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.”    

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    U.S Department of Education Announces Consequences for Maine’s Title Further Enforcement Action (Apr. 11, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced that it is referring its Title IX investigation into the Maine Department of Education (MDOE) to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for further enforcement action. The Department announced that it will also initiate administrative proceedings to adjudicate termination of MDOE’s federal K-12 education funding, including formula and discretionary grants that it states is due to MDOE’s “continued refusal to comply with Title IX,” and which follows the Department’s noncompliance finding and issuance of a final warning letter. 

    Topics:

    Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    U.S. Departments of Education and Justice Create Title IX Special Investigations Team (Apr. 4, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the creation of the Title IX Special Investigations Team (SIT) to ensure timely, consistent resolutions to protect students, “and especially female athletes, from the pernicious effect of gender ideology in school programs and activities.” The Title IX SIT includes: (1) ED Office for Civil Rights investigators and attorneys; (2) DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys; (3) ED Office of General Counsel attorneys; and (4) ED Student Privacy and Protection Office case workers and an FSA Enforcement investigator. SIT is responsive to Executive Orders “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports” and “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism.” 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.

Register