Title IX was enacted to prevent discrimination against and ensure equal opportunities for female students. By any metric, it has been wildly successful in achieving that purpose.
On March 30, 2023 Parents Defending Education submitted an amicus brief in support of appellants in Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
This case directly implicates PDE’s mission, and its outcome will have real-world consequences for PDE’s members.
Congress passed Title IX to ensure that female students in the United States could access the same benefits and opportunities enjoyed by male students. As one might expect, Title IX recognizes two categories of students: males and females.
Consistent with its purpose, the law repeatedly speaks about benefits provided by “one sex” versus “the other sex,” and sometimes references “both sexes.” Title IX, by its very nature, is comparative: it requires school administrators—and the courts overseeing them—to compare the opportunities afforded to one group with the opportunities afforded to another.
It is impossible to compare two things, however, if neither has a verifiable definition. The issue before the Court in this case is straightforward: what did Congress mean when it required equal treatment for members of each “sex”? The panel opinion tried to sidestep this question by invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). But Bostock interpreted a different statute—with a different structure and different purpose—and the Court specifically disavowed that its
reasoning was controlling for Title IX purposes.
The plain text, structure, history, and purpose of Title IX all point to one conclusion: that “sex” refers to biological and inalterable differences between males and females. As the Eleventh Circuit recently observed, “[t]here simply is no alternative definition of ‘sex’ for transgender persons as compared to nontransgender persons under Title IX.” Adams by & through Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 57 F.4th 791, 813-14 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Because CIAC’s policy fails to provide equal opportunities
for both sexes, plaintiffs have properly alleged an injury under Title IX and the district court’s dismissal of this case must be reversed.