Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting in part 

go beyond what was necessary to redress those injuries. 

Consider some of the unchallenged provisions.  The Rule 
requires  schools  to  provide  “reasonable  modifications”  to
pregnant students, including but not limited to “breaks dur-
ing  class  to  express  breast  milk,  breastfeed,  or  attend  to 
health  needs  associated  with  pregnancy  or  related  condi-
tions.”  89 Fed. Reg. 33887.  A separate provision prohibits
schools from making a preemployment inquiry as to an ap-
plicant’s marital status and limits the circumstances under 
which a school may make a preemployment inquiry as to an
applicant’s sex.  Id., at 33896.  The Rule also mandates that 
schools prohibit staff and students from retaliating against 
students who file Title IX complaints, and provides the pro-
cedure a school must follow upon receiving a complaint of
retaliation.  Ibid.  Those provisions (like many others in the 
Rule)  do  not  reference  gender  identity  discrimination  or 
hostile environment harassment and bear no apparent re-
lationship  to  respondents’  alleged  injuries.  As  litigation
over the Rule proceeds, respondents might be able to show
those other portions of the Rule will irreparably harm them 
in a manner justifying further equitable relief.  At this junc-
ture, however, enjoining the application of any other part of 
the Rule needlessly impairs the Government from enforcing 
Title  IX  and  deprives  potential  claimants  of  protections
against forms of sex discrimination not at issue in respond-
ents’ suit. 

Respondents  maintain  that  the  Government  must  re-
main enjoined from enforcing the entire Rule because the 
challenged provisions “permeate” it.  Respondents fail to ex-
plain,  however,  why  enjoining  enforcement  of  the  entire
Rule at this stage is necessary to redress their alleged inju-
ries.  As  an  initial  matter,  many  unchallenged  provisions
(such as those governing preemployment inquiries about an
applicant’s marital status or sex and prohibiting pregnancy 
discrimination) include no reference to gender identity dis-