The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) recently took the unusual step of terminating resolution agreements with five school districts and a California community college. The rescission of the resolution agreements, which were related to transgender or LGBTQ+ students, reflects the Trump administration’s shifting interpretation of sex-based harassment and discrimination.
Quick Hits
- The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has rescinded agreements protecting transgender and LGBTQ+ students across several school districts and one community college, reflecting a policy shift under the Trump administration.
- The office explained these agreements incorrectly interpreted Title IX, stating that protections apply only to sex and not gender identity.
- Such changes to Title IX enforcement and antidiscrimination obligations have significant implications for educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance.
On April 6, 2026, OCR announced that it had rescinded provisions of resolution agreements reached under the Biden administration to resolve alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
The resolution agreements reportedly had imposed obligations on the schools, including providing faculty training on pronoun use and maintaining access to bathrooms consistent with students’ gender identities. At least one of the affected school districts has already voted to rescind the policies adopted under pressure from ED, after receiving prior confirmation that the resolution agreement would no longer be enforced.
The rescission applies to resolution agreements with five school districts: Cape Henlopen School District, Delaware Valley School District, Fife School District, La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, and Sacramento City Unified. Additionally, the agency said it would no longer enforce an agreement with Taft College, a community college in California.
Title IX Sex-Based Harassment
Title IX prohibits educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of sex in educational programs. The law and its regulations require schools to promptly and effectively respond to and investigate allegations of sex-based harassment.
However, OCR said the rescinded resolution agreements were based on the Biden administration’s “distorted” interpretation that federal antidiscrimination law applies to discrimination on the “basis of ‘gender identity,’ not sex.”
“Title IX protections are based on sex, therefore, these districts are not in violation of the law and are freed from these terms of the resolution agreements,” OCR stated in a news release.
According to the 2023 findings in the Taft College case, OCR found the community college “failed to respond promptly and effectively” to allegations that employees harassed a transgender student based on sex, including allegations that faculty and staff repeatedly misnamed and misgendered the student. OCR further found that the college failed to adequately notify students that they could report allegations of harassment based on sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression.
The Taft College resolution agreement required the college to take certain steps, including updating its notices and policies “to clarify that harassment based on sex includes harassment based on sex stereotyping and that refusing to use (or repeatedly misusing) a student’s preferred names and pronouns may constitute harassment based on sex that could create a hostile academic environment under Title IX.” The college was further required to report information on sex-harassment allegations to the OCR.
Shifting Federal Policy
OCR’s rescission of the resolution agreements reflects how ED and OCR are shifting Title IX enforcement in line with the Trump administration’s policy of enforcing federal laws prohibiting sex-based discrimination and harassment under an interpretation of “sex” as being binary and immutable.
Previously, OCR found that San José State University’s policies allowing transgender student-athletes to compete in women’s sports and access the corresponding facilities violated Title IX. Further, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Minnesota over the state’s policy allowing transgender students to participate in interscholastic sports and use locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.
However, the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX as applying to only a binary and immutable view of “sex” is not dispositive, particularly when it comes to participation in interscholastic athletics. In a recent decision rejecting an organization’s claims over Minnesota’s sports participation policy, the Eighth Circuit noted that there is “no dispute that whether Title IX requires, permits, or prohibits the participation of transgender athletes in female athletics remains an open question of law.”
The Supreme Court of the United States is currently considering two cases—Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.—involving transgender students challenging state laws restricting participation in girls’ and women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth. A decision in that case is anticipated this summer.
Next Steps
The Trump administration’s policy shift has significant implications for Title IX and antidiscrimination obligations for educational institutions that receive federal financial assistance, particularly those in states with conflicting laws. As such, educational institutions may want to review and consider their applicable policies.
