Is Title IX Enforcement Heading Toward a Capacity Crisis?

OPENING STATEMENTS

This week, the Trump administration announced interagency agreements, designed to continue diminishing the Department of Education, that would move key civil-rights enforcement work toward the Department of Justice while moving special education and rehabilitative-services functions toward Health and Human Services. The suggestion is that the Office of Civil Rights will retain its statutory authority and that enforcement will continue without interruption, but public reporting describes DOJ taking on core work evaluating, investigating, and resolving civil-rights complaints that OCR has historically handled inside the Department of Education.

That may sound bureaucratic. It is not.

For college athletes, OCR is the front door of Title IX enforcement. It receives complaints, determines jurisdiction, investigates facts, interviews witnesses, reviews documents, conducts site visits, negotiates resolution agreements, and monitors compliance before a case ever becomes litigation. DOJ has an essential role, but under the ordinary OCR process, referral to DOJ comes after a school refuses voluntary compliance or after administrative enforcement becomes necessary.

That distinction matters because college athletics is entering the most legally unstable Title IX moment in decades. It has been just over one year since the House v. NCAA settlement, which permitted participating Division I schools to make direct payments to athletes, beginning with a cap of $20.5 million per school in the first academic year with annual increases to follow.

The unresolved question is whether those new payments must be allocated consistent with Title IX’s gender-equity requirements. In January 2025, the Biden-era OCR said school NIL compensation qualifies as athletic financial assistance and must be made available to male and female athletes in substantial proportion to their participation rates. One month later, the Trump-era OCR rescinded that guidance and said Title IX provides no clear legal authority to require proportional distribution of NIL compensation between male and female athletes. The House court approved the settlement, but it did not settle how Title IX applies to future revenue-sharing allocations.

There are challenges happening right now. Schroeder v. University of Oregon is a major class-action lawsuit filed by female athletes against the University of Oregon, alleging systemic gender discrimination in violation of Title IX. The case is notable as the first lawsuit seeking damages for unequal Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) training and income. The women’s rugby team at Quinnipiac University, has a hearing next week in a Title IX class action seeking to preserve varsity status, alleging that the school used NCAA revenue-sharing rules as an excuse to cut the program. But the flood of complaints likely will begin arriving soon into the new year. That’s when the first full cycle of House-era payment agreements, roster decisions, CAPS entries, annual attestations, and public athletics reporting will be on the books. Athletes, parents, lawyers, and advocates will be able to compare what schools promised, what they paid, and whose opportunities were reduced.

Precise legal challenges may vary. Some may challenge direct payments. Others may challenge roster cuts, roster limits, unequal facilities, recruiting support, NIL infrastructure, travel, medical care, coaching, or retaliation. Title IX reaches each of those categories because equal athletic opportunity includes financial assistance, participation opportunities, and the full range of benefits and treatment provided to men’s and women’s teams.

That is why moving OCR’s investigative infrastructure now is so dangerous. OCR received a record 22,687 complaints in FY2024, including 11,815 sex-discrimination complaints, while its staffing had declined compared with FY2009 levels. The system was already under strain before direct athlete compensation became a multi-million-dollar annual compliance issue for every participating Division I school.

If OCR’s education-specific complaint machinery is hollowed out at that exact moment, litigation will become the default enforcement mechanism. That is not efficient. It is not fair to athletes. And it is not what Title IX was designed to require.

I am deeply concerned that we are watching the foundation of Title IX athletics enforcement being weakened just as the next wave of violations is becoming visible. The crisis will not arrive all at once. It will arrive complaint by complaint, roster by roster, and payment agreement by payment agreement.

EXHIBIT A

Lawmakers keep saying the Saving College Sports agenda will “stabilize” college athletics, but I’ve laid out how it really locks athletes into a bad deal. After listening to the dozens of proposed amendments yesterday, I’m increasingly convinced the architects will come to regret it. They are trying to address so many issues at once — NIL, transfers, eligibility, revenue caps, TV rights, even conference movement — by hard‑coding today’s anxieties into federal law. That’s a dangerous way to govern a fast‑moving industry. If Congress codifies these guardrails, and it seems headed to a full Senate vote, dialing them back for the next athlete‑rights wave or market shift won’t be simple. Meanwhile, the college sports ethos we talked about last week - find the edge, push it, and if it breaks, find a new edge - will keep pushing against all of these limits in ways they may not be able to defend.

EXHIBIT B

Major League Baseball is reportedly exploring a draft overhaul that would bar high school players and delay draft eligibility until at least age 20, effectively steering top talent into college programs for longer. On its face, that’s a boon for college baseball and its TV partners, who get older, more developed players for more seasons. For athletes, it is another step backward. It pushes their first real shot at life‑changing money further down the road, and further cements college as a de facto minor league system for MLB, without anything close to minor league pay. Layer that onto Congress’ push to cap what college athletes can earn, and - if passed as part of a new CBA - baseball players in particular risk getting squeezed on both sides.

ON THE DOCKET

One last thing this week about the Protect College Sports Act. If it were to become law, it would seem to grant the NCAA some level of power to enforce it. Which could become problematic, given the Fifth Circuit recent ruling against the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Authority. The issue is a separation‑of‑powers doctrine: Congress cannot simply hand broad lawmaking power to a private or quasi‑private body and walk away. If courts apply that same logic to college sports, some of the most aggressive attempts to centralize control over NIL, transfers, and spending caps could unravel just as they’re getting started.

FOOTNOTES

114

The section in the Protect College Sports Act that’s titled “Prohibited Compensation and Agreements” and is being interpreted by some to limit the money college athletes can receive