115 F.4th 955
9th Cir.2024Background
- LGBTQ+ students challenged the Department of Education over Title IX’s religious exemption, which allows religious institutions to discriminate based on sex if such practices are required by their religious tenets.
- Plaintiffs claimed to have faced discrimination at religious institutions that receive federal funding due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
- The lawsuit alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and challenged a 2020 rule amendment under the APA.
- The district court dismissed all claims, finding no constitutional violation and no Article III standing for the APA claim, and denied leave to amend the complaint.
- The Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether Title IX's religious exemption and the 2020 rule amendment were constitutional and lawful under recent Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause | The religious exemption to Title IX violates the Establishment Clause by preferring religion and discriminating among religious sects. | The exemption is consistent with historical practice and does not establish religion; it simply accommodates religious exercise. | Exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause under historical practices and understanding. |
| Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment) | The exemption denies LGBTQ+ students equal protection by allowing sex-based discrimination. | The exemption serves the important objective of protecting religious exercise and is appropriately limited. | Exemption survives intermediate scrutiny and does not violate equal protection. |
| APA Challenge to 2020 Rule | The 2020 rule, by removing prior notice requirements, harms students by reducing transparency and increasing risk of discrimination. | Plaintiffs lack standing; they failed to show that the rule caused them specific harm. | Dismissed for lack of standing; no causation established. |
| Leave to Amend | Proposed amendments would cure defects and allow for viable constitutional claims. | Amendment would be futile as claims are legally insufficient. | Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2022) (abandoned the Lemon test; Establishment Clause analysis must reference history and tradition)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII)
- Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (Title VII exemption for religious institutions does not violate the Establishment Clause)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (statutory religious accommodations are consistent with the Establishment Clause if they alleviate burdens on religious exercise)
- Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) (government benefits to religious organizations may withstand Establishment Clause scrutiny)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (government practices consistent with historical traditions are presumptively constitutional for Establishment Clause purposes)