Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting in part 

the  Rule  unlawfully  rewrites  Title  IX’s  prohibition  on  sex
discrimination to include discrimination based on students’ 
gender  identity.  Respondents  further  argue  that  §106.2’s
definition of “hostile environment harassment” is unlawful 
under  Davis  v.  Monroe  County  Bd.  of  Ed.,  526  U. S.  629 
(1999), because it waters down the standard for what con-
stitutes  actionable  sex-based  harassment:  Title  IX  com-
plainants can prevail under the Rule by showing the alleged 
harassment  was  severe  or  pervasive  (as  opposed  to  both)
and do not need to prove that the offending conduct denied
them  access  to  educational  benefits.    Respondents  sepa-
rately  assert  that  §106.2’s  definition  of  “hostile  environ-
ment  harassment”  violates  the  First  Amendment  by
chilling or compelling speech, including on issues of gender 
identity.

Accordingly, when respondents asked the District Courts
to  preliminarily  enjoin  enforcement  of  the  Rule,  they  fo-
cused  on  the  two  provisions  concerning  gender  identity—
§§106.10 and 106.31(a)(2)—and §106.2’s definition of “hos-
tile  environment  harassment.”  Respondents  alleged  that
those three provisions would cause them irreparable harm 
if the Rule went into effect.  Specifically, they asserted that
they  would  incur  unrecoverable  costs  in  complying  with
those provisions (and a loss of Title IX funding if they failed 
to do so), that they would lose the right to speak freely on 
issues such as gender identity, and that they would be un-
able  to  enforce  existing  state  laws  that  conflict  with  the 
Rule’s  prohibition  of  gender  identity  discrimination.    Alt-
hough  respondents’  alleged  irreparable  harm  apparently 
traces back to just three of the Rule’s provisions, the Dis-
trict  Courts  preliminarily  enjoined  the  Government  from
enforcing the entire Rule in all the respondent States. 
—————— 
2024 WL 3381901 (ND Tex., July 11, 2024); Arkansas v. United States 
Dept.  of  Ed., No.  4:24–CV–636,  (ED  Mo.,  July  24,  2024),  ECF  Doc.  54; 
Alabama  v.  Cardona,  No.  7:24–CV–533,  2024  WL  3607492  (ND  Ala., 
July 30, 2024).