Federalism and Title IX
Should the constitution grow alongside society, or should it remain as its authors intended? This debate, as old as the American government itself, has been repeatedly cited to support the implementation of new amendments and laws that offer protection to state governments and individuals. However, supporters of a strong central government have often considered it unnecessary. Still, many essential amendments and laws have passed thanks to this debate, including term limits for presidents (Amendment 22), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the coveted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. In the modern era, composed of complicated webs of politics and restrictions on state governments, how does Title IX hold up?
Although it is often associated with gender equity in athletics, Title IX has evolved into a broad legal framework that dictates how educational institutions address issues of sexual harassment, sexual assault, pregnancy discrimination, and sex-based exclusion. The ability to enforce Title IX rests largely with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, meaning that the scope of Title IX is shaped by federal involvement. This means that as the executive branch changes every 4 years, heavy federal policy change comes with it, including several alterations to Title IX.
For example, the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX regulations narrowed the definition of actionable harassment and required live hearings with cross-examination in higher education cases of sexual assault. Then, the Biden administration sought to replace that framework with broader definitions of sex discrimination and more flexible grievance procedures. Overall, it is clear that Title IX is heavily dependent on the federal government.
On top of federal dependency, Title IX can be interpreted differently in different states. In more conservative states, legislatures have often embraced the narrowest possible reading of federal obligations, emphasizing due process protections and resisting expansive interpretations of sex discrimination. On the other hand, blue states such as New Jersey occupy a completely separate position; they wish to expand the power of Title IX as much as possible. As a state with an extensive tradition of expansive civil rights protections, New Jersey wishes to protect its colleges and universities.
This tension has already surfaced in federal action involving New Jersey institutions. Lawsuits against Rutgers University and Princeton University have scrutinized whether internal disciplinary processes allow for fairness, illustrating how Title IX disputes in New Jersey frequently sit at the crossroads of federal and state ideals.
Additionally, one of the clearest illustrations of the tension between federal and state interpretations of Title IX appears in the definition of sex under the statute. In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the Fourth Circuit (an intermediate judicial level that oversees several states in a region) held that a school board’s policy barring a transgender student from using the restroom consistent with his gender identity, or their refusing to give him a transcript that represented his proper sex, violated Title IX as interpreted under federal guidance recognizing gender identity as a protected category. This reflects how applications of Title IX can contradict the executive branch when outside supreme courts. It is important to note that the specific circuit court that dealt with this issue was mixed between being conservative and liberal, as a result of a diverse group of judges from each political party. The result was a fragmented national landscape in which the same conduct could violate Title IX in one jurisdiction and be permissible in another, depending largely on how courts and state officials treated federal agency guidance.
More recently, that fragmentation has intensified through direct state challenges to federal Title IX rulemaking. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, a coalition of Republican-led states challenged the Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX regulations, arguing that the agency exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. A federal court vacated the rule, effectively reinstating the 2020 regulations nationwide. The case exemplifies how Title IX enforcement has become a site of federalism conflict, where states leverage judicial review to assert control over civil rights norms traditionally understood as federal guarantees.
The duality of federalism and Title IX is the background of many of the integral policy issues in universities. Because Title IX enforcement is tied to federal administrative discretion, its application is uneven. Conservative states often resist expansive interpretations, narrowing protections for students, while progressive states may voluntarily adopt broader interpretations. New Jersey sits at the latter end of this spectrum, protecting its residents via expanded Title IX power. The combination of weak and fluctuating federal enforcement of Title IX and robust state-level civil rights protections allows New Jersey to lead in establishing consistent and equitable campus standards, ensuring that students’ rights are protected even when federal guidance is uncertain or politically contested.
Overall, continued reliance on unstable federal Title IX regulations appears increasingly inadequate. When federal standards swing with each administration, universities are left to operate in legal uncertainty, students face inconsistent protections, and institutional legitimacy suffers. Fortunately, New Jersey is well-positioned to respond by bolstering state-level protections that stabilize Title IX enforcement regardless of federal political shifts. A state framework could ensure procedural guarantees for all students. Such an approach would not replace Title IX, but rather reinforce it, insulating New Jersey institutions from federal instability while aligning campus policies with the state’s broader commitment to civil rights.
Bibliography
ACLU. “Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2019, www.aclu.org/cases/grimm-v-gloucester-county-school-board.
“What Schools Need to Know after Court Vacates Title IX Regulations Nationally - Jackson Lewis.” Jackson Lewis, 11 Jan. 2025, www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/what-schools-need-know-after-court-vacates-title-ix-regulations-nationally.