Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

DEPARMENT OF EDUCATION v. LOUISIANA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting in part 

§106.31(a)(2) states that Title IX generally permits “differ-
ent treatment or separation on the basis of sex” only to the 
extent that such differential treatment or separation does 
not “discriminat[e]. . . by subjecting a person to more than 
de  minimis  harm.”    Section  106.31(a)(2)  further  provides
that a policy or practice that “prevents a person from par-
ticipating  in  an  education  program  or  activity  consistent
with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more 
than  de  minimis  harm  on  the  basis  of  sex.”   (Emphasis
added.)  Sections 106.10 and 106.31(a)(2) are the only pro-
visions in the entire Rule that reference “gender identity.”   
Third, at 34 CFR §106.2, the Rule defines several terms,
including “hostile environment harassment.”  89 Fed. Reg. 
33884.  “Hostile environment harassment” is a prohibited 
form of sex discrimination that, as defined by the Rule, in-
volves “[u]nwelcome sex-based conduct that, based on the 
totality of the circumstances, is subjectively and objectively
offensive and is so severe or pervasive that it limits or de-
nies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from the 
recipient’s education program or activity (i.e., creates a hos-
tile  environment).”  Ibid.  Respondents  do  not  object  to
§106.2’s definitions of other terms within the Rule, such as
“complaint,”  “disciplinary  sanctions,”  “elementary  school,”
and “student.” 

Two  groups  of  States  filed  suits  in  two  District  Courts
challenging the new Rule as unlawful.3  They contend that 

—————— 

3 One suit was brought by the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Mon-
tana, and Idaho, joined by the Louisiana Department of Education and 
18 Louisiana school boards.  Another suit was brought by the states of 
Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia, joined
by an association of Christian teachers and a 15-year-old girl from West
Virginia.  Several other States and parties have filed similar suits chal-
lenging  the  Rule  and  requesting  preliminary  injunctions  within  the 
plaintiff States.  See Kansas v. United States Dept. of Ed., __ F. Supp. 3d
__, 2024 WL 3273285 (D Kan., July 2, 2024); Texas v. United States, No. 
24–CV–86,  2024  WL  3405342  (ND  Tex.,  July  11,  2024);  Carroll  Inde-
pendent School District v. United States Dept. of Ed., __ F. Supp. 3d __,