Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

DEPARMENT OF EDUCATION v. LOUISIANA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting in part 

crimination or hostile environment harassment.  Respond-
ents  offer  nothing  to  justify  preventing  the  Government
from enforcing those parts of the Rule.  As for the provisions 
that  do  incorporate  the  Department’s  allegedly  unlawful 
definitions of sex-based discrimination and harassment, re-
spondents do not explain how those provisions would injure
them while the Government is enjoined from enforcing the
disputed definitions.  Take the Rule’s requirement that em-
ployees  be  trained  on  “[t]he  scope  of  conduct  that  consti-
tutes  sex  discrimination  under  Title  IX  and  this  part,  in-
cluding  the  definition  of  sex-based  harassment.”    89  Fed. 
Reg. 33886.  Even respondents do not argue that the train-
ing requirement is itself unlawful.  With the challenged pro-
visions out of the picture, the “scope of conduct” under that
training provision would exclude gender identity discrimi-
nation and hostile environment harassment, the sources of 
respondents’  alleged  injuries.    If there  were any  doubt  on 
this score, moreover, the Court could simply have excluded 
the provision from its stay order.

Respondents  further  assert  that  the  Rule  would  be  un-
workable with the Government enjoined from applying its 
definition of sex discrimination.  For 50 years, however, Ti-
tle IX regulations have not defined sex discrimination, and 
respondents  offer  no  evidence  that  schools  cannot  comply
with their Title IX obligations without such a definition. 

* 

* 

* 
By blocking the Government from enforcing scores of reg-
ulations that respondents never challenged and that bear 
no  apparent  relationship  to  respondents’  alleged  injuries, 
the lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the
discrete  harms  alleged  here.  The  injunctions  this  Court
leaves in place will burden the Government more than nec-
essary.  The injunctions will also affect the public.  Individ-
uals in the respondent states will be deprived of guidance