Title IX Repeal and Team Cuts: A Double Blow to Women’s College Athletes

Key points

• The U.S. Department of Education formally rescinded the 2024 Title IX regulations that interpreted sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, reinstating the 2020 rules from the first Trump administration.
• The new regulations take immediate effect without a notice-and-comment period, removing explicit protections for LGBTQ+ students but maintaining due process standards for sexual harassment investigations.
• A class-action lawsuit against Stephen F. Austin State University alleges that cutting women’s beach volleyball, golf, and bowling teams violates Title IX gender parity requirements, as women comprise 63% of students but only 40% of athletic roster spots.
• Two top players, Ryann Allison and Brynn Dowd, were abruptly cut from the reinstated beach volleyball team, with allegations of retaliation for their involvement in the Title IX lawsuit.
• The Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox affirmed the 'three-prong test' for Title IX compliance, countering arguments that the Loper Bright decision invalidated these regulations.
• The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, responsible for investigating Title IX violations, was significantly weakened by the Department of Government Efficiency in early 2024, reducing federal enforcement capacity.

Background

Title IX, enacted in 1972, prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Its implementation has been contentious, with the 'three-prong test' introduced in 1979 to ensure gender parity in athletics. Recent years have seen a surge in Title IX lawsuits over the cutting of women’s sports teams, often cited as 'non-revenue' programs. The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement, which mandated back pay for athletes, intensified financial pressures on athletic departments, leading to cuts in women’s and Olympic sports. The federal regulatory landscape has shifted dramatically, with the Biden administration’s 2024 rule expanding protections to LGBTQ+ students being struck down by courts and now formally repealed by the Trump administration. This repeal aligns with a broader political focus on transgender athletes, though it does not directly address the gender parity issues facing cisgender women in college sports.

How outlets are covering it

Slate Magazine emphasizes the human impact of Title IX enforcement gaps, highlighting the personal toll on athletes like Ryann Allison and Brynn Dowd, who faced retaliation and program cuts despite legal victories. It argues that the Republican focus on transgender athletes is a cynical distraction from the systemic underfunding of women’s sports. Politico and Education Week focus on the regulatory mechanics, noting that the repeal of the 2024 rule restores 2020 regulations that prioritize due process in sexual misconduct cases but lack LGBTQ+ protections. Education Week stresses that the practical impact is minimal, as the 2020 rules were already being enforced, but the move removes legal cover for Democratic-led states supporting gender-inclusive policies. The National Women’s Law Center, cited by Education Week, warns that the move weakens protections against sexual harassment, while Defending Education, a legal group supporting the administration, calls it a 'long-awaited' correction. These perspectives reveal a divide between those viewing Title IX as a tool for gender equity and those seeing it as a vehicle for gender identity politics, with the federal repeal potentially undermining enforcement of gender parity in athletics.

Why it matters

The repeal of the 2024 Title IX rule and the ongoing litigation over women’s sports cuts highlight the fragility of gender equity in education. While the federal rule change does not directly impact the 'three-prong test' for athletic parity, it signals a shift in enforcement priorities, potentially reducing federal oversight of Title IX violations. This could embolden institutions to cut women’s sports programs under the guise of financial constraints, as seen at Stephen F. Austin State University. The case underscores that progress in women’s sports is not guaranteed but requires continuous legal and political advocacy. As the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights remains weakened, the burden of enforcement falls on individual athletes and local courts, creating an uneven landscape for gender equity in education.

What to watch

The Title IX lawsuit against Stephen F. Austin State University is set to go to trial in December, with the plaintiffs seeking class-action certification. The Supreme Court’s Little v. Hecox decision may provide a legal basis for upholding the 'three-prong test' in future cases. The Department of Education is reportedly working on a new regulation that explicitly excludes gender identity-based discrimination from Title IX protections, aligning with a presidential executive order. A bipartisan Senate bill aimed at capping spending on Olympic sports and ensuring gender parity remains in limbo. As the 2020 Title IX rules take effect, states and school districts may face increased legal challenges over their gender-inclusive policies, particularly in Democratic-led jurisdictions. The long-term impact on women’s sports will depend on the strength of federal enforcement and the outcome of pending litigation.