Title IX Regulations in 2026: Where Things Actually Stand

The Title IX regulatory landscape has been turbulent. In a span of less than two years, the Biden administration issued a comprehensive new Title IX rule, that rule took effect in some states but was enjoined in twenty-six others, a federal district court vacated the entire rule nationwide, and the Department of Education declined to defend the rule on appeal. Today, in 2026, the rules that govern Title IX proceedings at colleges, universities, and K-12 schools are the same rules that governed in 2020, with new rulemaking on the horizon.

This post explains how we got here and what the current rules require.

The 2020 Title IX Regulations

The 2020 regulations, codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, were issued by the first Trump administration's Department of Education. They imposed a detailed grievance procedure on educational institutions receiving federal funds. Key features included a narrow definition of sexual harassment limited to conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; a requirement that institutions of higher education conduct live hearings with cross-examination by advisors; specific notice and evidence-sharing rules; and procedural protections for both complainants and respondents.

The 2020 regulations were controversial. Advocates for survivors argued that the procedural framework, particularly the live hearing and cross-examination requirements, made it harder for complainants to come forward. Civil libertarians and respondents' advocates argued that the procedural protections were essential to fairness.

The 2024 Title IX Final Rule

In April 2024, the Biden administration's Department of Education issued a comprehensive new rule that took effect August 1, 2024. The 2024 rule made several significant changes:

• It expanded the definition of sex-based harassment to include harassment based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, and pregnancy
• It eliminated the mandatory live hearing requirement for postsecondary institutions, allowing institutions to use a single-investigator model
• It changed the standard for when an institution had a duty to respond, broadening the circumstances in which Title IX obligations were triggered
• It revised the rules on retaliation, supportive measures, and grievance procedures
• It included provisions interpreted as protecting transgender students, including with respect to facility access and use of pronouns

The expansion of "sex" to include gender identity and sexual orientation was the most legally consequential change and the most heavily litigated.

The Lawsuits and Preliminary Injunctions

Numerous states, including Ohio, filed lawsuits challenging the 2024 rule almost immediately. By the time the rule took effect on August 1, 2024, federal courts had issued preliminary injunctions blocking its enforcement in twenty-six states. The result was a fragmented regulatory landscape: institutions in some states operated under the 2024 rule, while institutions in others continued under the 2020 rule, and a Kansas federal court order even reached certain schools nationwide based on the membership of plaintiff organizations.

This patchwork created significant compliance difficulties. Multi-state university systems and athletic conferences faced different rules in different states. Institutions had to maintain dual policy frameworks, and the legal advice on which policy to apply depended on jurisdiction and sometimes on the specific identity of the parties involved.

State of Tennessee v. Cardona: The 2024 Rule Vacated

On January 9, 2025, Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a final decision in State of Tennessee v. Cardona vacating the 2024 Title IX Final Rule in its entirety on a nationwide basis. The court held that the 2024 rule:

• Exceeded the Department of Education's authority under Title IX by interpreting "discrimination on the basis of sex" to include gender identity and sexual orientation, contrary to the long-standing meaning of "sex" in the statute
• Violated the First Amendment by, among other things, requiring schools and teachers to use names and pronouns associated with a student's asserted gender identity, and by adopting an unconstitutionally vague and overbroad definition of sexual harassment
• Violated the Spending Clause by changing the meaning of "sex discrimination" without providing recipients of federal funds clear notice of the change
• Was the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action

The court rejected the Department's argument that any infirmities should be cured by severance, holding that the gender identity provisions were so central to the rule that the entire rule had to be vacated together.

The Current State of the Rules

Following the January 9, 2025 decision and the change in administration shortly thereafter, the Department of Education confirmed that the 2024 rule is no longer in effect anywhere in the United States. The 2020 regulations are once again the governing framework for Title IX enforcement and for institutional grievance procedures.

Most institutions had retained their 2020-compliant policies precisely because conduct alleged to have occurred before August 1, 2024 still had to be processed under the older framework. Reverting fully to the 2020 framework was therefore primarily a matter of withdrawing 2024-era updates.

What This Means in Practice

For institutions of higher education in 2026:

• Sexual harassment must meet the 2020 definition: conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, or quid pro quo conduct, or sexual assault as defined by federal law
• Live hearings with advisor-led cross-examination are required at the postsecondary level
• The full grievance procedure, including notice, evidence sharing, and written determinations, applies
• The narrower 2020 conception of sex discrimination governs OCR enforcement, although Title IX itself, as enacted by Congress, remains the underlying statute

For complainants and respondents, the procedural framework that controls their case is the 2020 framework. Our posts on the Title IX investigation, the Title IX hearing, and the Title IX appeal address each stage of that procedure.

What Comes Next

The current administration's Department of Education has indicated that it intends to engage in new Title IX rulemaking. Any new rule will go through the formal notice-and-comment process and is unlikely to take effect quickly. Until and unless that happens, the 2020 regulations control. Institutions should not expect another sudden shift, and parties to current proceedings should expect their cases to be governed by the 2020 framework from start to finish.

State law also continues to play a role. Some states have enacted their own statutory protections that supplement Title IX, and Title IX itself, as a federal statute enacted by Congress, remains in force regardless of regulatory changes. The vacatur of the 2024 rule did not eliminate Title IX. It eliminated a particular set of regulations interpreting Title IX.

The Bottom Line

If you are a complainant, a respondent, or a Title IX professional in 2026, the rules that apply to your case are the 2020 regulations. Institutions that updated policies for the 2024 rule should have reverted to their 2020-compliant versions. Anyone navigating a current Title IX proceeding should make sure their institution is following the procedure required by the rules actually in force, not procedures derived from a vacated rule. An experienced Title IX advisor can confirm that the institution is applying the right framework and can identify any procedural deviations that may matter to the outcome.