The Department of Education Argued in Court that Their New Title IX Rules are Optional. What Could Be the Fallout?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Nov 12, 2019 | 0 Comments

In our last blog post, we discussed the outcome of a crucially important Title IX case from California – SurvJustice Inc. v. DeVos. Here, we discuss the potential ramifications of the arguments that the Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights advanced to win it.

SurvJustice Inc. v. DeVos

The case revolved around the recent amendments to the Title IX enforcement structure that the Trump administration and Betsy DeVos proposed in 2017. As you may recall, those amendments focused on rolling back the extreme protections that had been afforded to alleged victims of sexual misconduct under President Obama's Department of Education.

A federal court in California recently dismissed the case because the plaintiffs – all non-profit advocacy organizations – were not allowed to sue to block the new rules because they were not “final.”

The court ruled this way because it was persuaded by the Department of Education's claim that the rules had not endowed anyone with rights or obligations.

In short, the Department of Education and the Office for Civil Rights claimed that the amendments were not mandatory.

If New Rules are Optional, What Have Schools Been Doing?

Colleges across the country have been on a Title IX roller coaster ride for the past few years. Ever since the Obama administration issued new Title IX guidance that was designed to make it easier for alleged victims to come forward, schools have had to drastically alter their Title IX investigation methods.

First, they had to bend over backward to give alleged victims the space they wanted. Colleges had to redraw the rules for sexual misconduct investigations to cater to the demands of alleged victims.

Then, the Trump administration rolled back those rules to give accused students the due process they deserved and that they had enjoyed before. Many of the changes that the schools had made to their Title IX enforcement systems now had to get thrown away – to the shock, dismay, and anger of many students who wanted them.

Throughout, colleges have acted with the understanding that not complying with these rules would lead to their federal funding being stripped away. The stakes simply could not be higher for them.

But now the Department of Education is on record saying that the rules they had just created – the ones that sent colleges on an unpopular scramble to protect the due process rights of the accused – are not actually mandatory. This is in spite of the letters of assurance that the OCR had sent to colleges across the country, demanding that they agree to comply with Title IX rules in order to receive federal funding.

It would not be surprising to see colleges try to return to the prior, Obama-era standards for Title IX cases, now. They were more popular for students, despite the fact that they violated the rights of the accused.

Title IX Defense Lawyer Joseph D. Lento

In the end, the OCR's arguments in SurvJustice do little other than to undermine the few protections and little certainty that had been won on the Title IX front.

Joseph D. Lento is a Title IX defense lawyer and national Title IX advisor. Call his law office at (888) 535-3686 or contact him online.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he and his team have sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.