"A Thousand Cuts": Local School Districts and State Governments Challenge the Department of Education's Civil Rights Enforcement

School districts and state governments across the United States are increasingly questioning the enforcement authority of the U.S. Department of Education, especially as the department continues to crack down on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices involving LGBTQ+ students. This trend departs from the typically cooperative relationship between federal agencies and the K-12 education community, and emerges against the backdrop of the Trump administration's attempts to enforce new policies by withholding federal funds.

"The norm has always been a partnership between local school districts, state governments, and the federal government," said Kenneth Wong, an education policy researcher and former Brown University professor. Wong currently serves as dean of the Faculty of Governance and Policy at the University of Hong Kong.

During or after investigations by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), school districts typically enter into resolution agreements with the Department of Education to address complaints of discrimination and harassment. Ultimately, both sides appear to benefit: the federal government oversees sometimes years-long policy and practice reforms by states and districts to comply with federal law, while districts and states gain a way to conclude federal investigations and avoid funding losses.

"The Trump administration is now rolling out one policy after another, one executive order after another, one practice after another, and if you add them all up, cumulatively it represents a significant effort to depart from this historic partnership," Wong said.

Shortened timelines, legal conflicts, and ideological disagreements

In the past, the Department of Education's civil rights enforcement practices helped drive systemic change on issues such as racial harassment, sex or disability discrimination. But the Trump administration's enforcement efforts are increasingly sparking legal battles, especially over Title IX—including whether transgender students should be excluded from boys' and men's sports and school facilities.

In a recent case, the Fairfax County School Board and the Arlington School Board in Virginia sued the Department of Education separately in late August, after the agency found that the two districts violated Title IX by allowing transgender students to access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity.

Title IX protects students and employees from sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funding. Whether LGBTQ+ students, including transgender students, are protected under the law has swung back and forth between Democratic and Republican administrations.

Republican leaders, including officials overseeing the current Department of Education's civil rights enforcement, say allowing transgender students to use restrooms and sports teams consistent with their gender identity endangers the safety and athletic achievements of cisgender students. Consequently, the Trump administration gave the two Virginia districts and three other neighboring districts just 10 days to agree to its terms or face referral to the U.S. Department of Justice—even though the five Northern Virginia districts requested the customary 90-day response period.

"OCR did not give them the time they needed to reach some kind of negotiated resolution with the district or the state," said Nancy Potter, who served as a senior supervising attorney and team leader at the Office for Civil Rights from 2015 to 2019. "I think this is more about changes within OCR itself, rather than changes in states and districts." Potter is the founder of the education law firm Potter Law and assists Title IX coordinators through the consulting firm Title IX Solutions.

The timeline for an agency to agree to a resolution agreement is at OCR's discretion and varies based on the facts of each case and whether the entity has made good-faith efforts to cooperate with OCR's civil rights enforcement, a Department of Education spokesperson told K-12 Dive in an email on September 23.

Experts say shortened timelines, threats of referral to the Department of Justice, and threats to federal funding are placing districts and states bound by state laws or court precedents in a difficult position, caught in conflict with the administration's interpretation of Title IX. This is largely driving them to challenge the government in court.

"This is somewhat unprecedented," said Kayleigh Baker, who works with school districts on Title IX compliance as a senior consultant at TNG Consulting and a member of the advisory board for the Association of Title IX Administrators.

For example, California sued the U.S. Department of Justice in June, "anticipating imminent legal retaliation against California's school system," after the state ignored federal warnings and directed its districts to allow transgender students to participate in sports teams consistent with their gender identity. The Department of Justice had earlier that month sent letters to California districts stating they "face legal liability" after a transgender athlete won a gold medal at the state high school girls' track and field championships in the summer. The agency required California districts to certify that they do not allow transgender students to participate on teams consistent with their gender identity—a move that would violate California's long-standing state law requiring such inclusion.

Instead, California filed suit before the June 9 certification deadline, after State Superintendent Tony Thurmond told districts that the state would respond to the administration on their behalf. The lawsuit is still pending.

Behind these education systems' growing resistance to OCR enforcement is also a sense that these states and districts are supporting LGBTQ+ students and providing them with "safe spaces," education leaders say. But as a result, Title IX consultants and education leaders say states and districts increasingly feel they are being targeted.

Denver Public Schools was an early focus of the administration's "directed" Title IX investigations in January. After OCR found it in violation of Title IX in late August, the district expressed this view in a statement on September 2. A directed investigation is a case initiated by the department without a formal complaint filed by an external party.

"What is striking about the OCR process is what they did not do. They did not visit East High School. They did not interview students, staff, or community members. They did not independently verify the claims now cited," the Denver Public Schools board said in the statement. "Instead, they reached conclusions using a method that departs from established investigative practices and advances an obscure interpretation of Title IX."

The board said its decision to implement gender-neutral restrooms stemmed from feedback from LGBTQ+ students who said they felt unsafe. "For these students, accessing a restroom where they feel safe is not symbolic," the board said. "It is about dignity, health, and the ability to learn." Denver has not yet filed a legal challenge against OCR but said, "As we determine our next steps, our values remain unchanged."

The cost of supporting LGBTQ+ students

Meanwhile, under the Trump administration, the decision to challenge OCR findings comes with a high price.

For example, Fairfax stated in its lawsuit that federal appellate court precedent "binds FCPS" because it is "controlling law" in the Fourth Circuit, not the Trump administration's interpretation of Title IX. The district said the administration's actions have already cost it $167 million in federal funding. This includes $61 million for food and nutrition for low-income students, $41 million for services for students with disabilities, and another $64 million to support homeless students, English learners, career and technical education, and professional development for teachers and administrators. In its latest court filing on September 25, the district said the department "has already withheld and certainly will continue to withhold reimbursement payments."

Arlington relies on $23 million in federal funding, including funds for school food and special education purposes.

"We suggest you ask those entities that are willing to persistently violate federal law why they are willing to risk losing funding for illegal activities," Department of Education spokesperson Julie Hartman said in an email statement sent to K-12 Dive on September 23.

The Department of Education maintains that it has not cut funding to these districts, although it has threatened to do so in other cases, including against the Maine Department of Education. Instead, Department of Education spokesperson Madison Biedermann said the department has flagged these schools as "high risk" in internal systems for when districts apply for discretionary grants, and will only provide federal funds through reimbursement. This means districts now need to pay education costs upfront and then apply for reimbursement to receive Department of Education funds.

Title IX consultants say that because districts are already financially strained, filing legal challenges to recover or retain federal funds only exacerbates their difficulties. They add that to help cope with this situation, districts can utilize pro bono legal services, form coalitions, and turn to civil rights organizations to assist in challenging the administration.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has set out to establish its accelerated investigation timelines and cuts to federal education funding as the new normal. In its 2025 Unified Agenda, used to set government priorities and regulatory timelines, the administration stated its intention to codify Title IX and Title VI enforcement "in a manner consistent with statutory requirements," while "streamlining OCR's procedures for seeking termination of federal financial assistance to institutions that deliberately violate federal civil rights laws and refuse voluntary compliance."

Title VI is a civil rights law that protects students from discrimination based on race. It has historically been used to protect the rights of historically marginalized students, including when they are disproportionately represented in school discipline data, especially exclusionary discipline. However, the current administration is using the law to protect white and Asian students, sometimes at the expense of DEI efforts aimed at creating a level playing field for these historically marginalized groups.

"We know the Trump administration is targeting these schools' noncompliance in every possible way," Baker said. "It's death by a thousand cuts."