HJRES-165-118
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 442.
Sponsored by Mary Miller (R-IL)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a final rule issued by the Department of Education on April 29, 2024. That rule updated regulations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. The rule established new definitions related to sex-based harassment and added procedural requirements for how schools must handle complaints. If this resolution passes, the rule would have no legal force and the Department of Education would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Who benefits
Schools and universities that found the 2024 rule's new grievance procedures and definitions burdensome or costly to implement would be relieved of those compliance obligations. States and school districts that objected to the rule's definitions — particularly those related to gender identity — would regain flexibility to set their own policies. Religious schools receiving federal funds that sought exemptions from the rule's requirements would no longer need to navigate those provisions. Opponents of the rule who argued it exceeded the Department's statutory authority would see that authority curtailed.
Who is hurt
Students who relied on the 2024 rule's updated definitions of sex-based harassment and its strengthened grievance procedures for reporting and resolving complaints would lose those specific protections. LGBTQ+ students, particularly transgender students, who may have benefited from the rule's definitions and nondiscrimination provisions would see those federal regulatory protections removed. Advocates who argued the rule clarified schools' obligations under Title IX would lose the regulatory framework they supported. Schools that had already invested resources in updating their policies to comply with the 2024 rule would have incurred those costs without a lasting regulatory requirement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Department of Education exceeded its statutory authority by using a rulemaking process to redefine "sex" under Title IX in ways that Congress never intended when it passed the law in 1972. They contend that questions of this magnitude — affecting every federally funded school in the country and touching on deeply contested social and legal questions — require explicit congressional authorization, not agency action alone, consistent with the major questions doctrine affirmed in West Virginia v. EPA. Supporters also argue the rule's grievance procedures imposed significant administrative burdens on schools and, in some cases, undermined due process protections for students accused of misconduct. They maintain that disapproving the rule restores the proper constitutional balance between Congress and executive agencies, and returns policy decisions on these sensitive issues to elected legislators and state governments where democratic accountability is strongest.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the 2024 rule was a lawful exercise of the Department of Education's authority to implement Title IX, a statute that has protected students from sex-based discrimination for over 50 years. They contend the rule provided necessary clarity on what constitutes sex-based harassment and established fair, consistent procedures for schools to follow when handling complaints — filling gaps left by prior regulations. Opponents argue that nullifying the rule via the Congressional Review Act leaves students, particularly those most vulnerable to harassment and discrimination, without clear federal protections and strips away procedural safeguards that schools had already begun implementing. They also note that under the CRA, the Department would be prohibited from issuing any substantially similar rule in the future without new legislation, effectively freezing federal guidance on these issues and leaving students' protections dependent on a patchwork of varying state laws.
Constitutional context
Title IX rests on Congress's Spending Clause power (Art. I, Sec. 8), which allows the federal government to attach conditions to federal education funding. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) established that such conditions must be unambiguous and related to the federal interest. The major questions doctrine, reinforced by West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), holds that agencies must have clear congressional authorization for rules of vast economic and political significance. Carson v. Makin (2022) is relevant to the extent religious schools interact with Title IX exemptions. The Tenth Amendment limits federal commandeering of state education policy. Equal Protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment are implicated by the rule's nondiscrimination definitions. The CRA itself (5 U.S.C. Ch. 8) provides the procedural mechanism for this disapproval.
Checks and balances
This resolution would shift authority from the executive branch (Department of Education) back to the legislative branch. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can nullify a final agency rule by passing a joint resolution of disapproval signed by the President (or by overriding a veto). If enacted, the CRA also bars the agency from issuing any "substantially similar" rule without new statutory authorization, giving Congress lasting control over this regulatory space. This represents a direct legislative check on executive agency rulemaking power.
Historical precedent
The Congressional Review Act has been used successfully to nullify agency rules on multiple occasions, most notably in 2017 when Congress used it to strike down 14 rules issued in the final months of the Obama administration. The original Title IX regulations were last comprehensively updated in 2020 (the DeVos rules), which were themselves subject to legal challenges and were the regulations the 2024 rule was designed to replace.