A recent en banc ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinforces a high legal bar for institutions facing Title IX damages claims. In an 8-4 decision, the full court reaffirmed that the deliberate indifference standard the Supreme Court established in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education remains a demanding one for plaintiffs to meet. Writing for the majority, the court explained that schools are held liable only for their own misconduct, and only when the response they choose is clearly unreasonable.

For colleges and universities, though, the practical lesson is more nuanced than the outcome suggests. The decision reaffirms a high legal bar for liability, but it is also a reminder that decisions made after a disciplinary process has concluded, particularly around readmission and sanction changes, continue to create real litigation and compliance risk.

A Quick Recap

The case arose after a University of Wisconsin student reported that she had been sexually assaulted by a fellow student and football player. The university investigated, found the responding student responsible for sexual assault and sexual harassment under its own conduct code, and expelled him.

The responding student was later tried in criminal court on a related charge and acquitted. He petitioned the university’s chancellor for readmission, citing new evidence developed at trial. The university’s own counsel had described a complete trial transcript as an important piece of that review, but time pressure meant it was never obtained. Acting within weeks, and reportedly under pressure from donors and the football program, the chancellor vacated the sexual assault finding while leaving the sexual harassment finding in place, and readmitted the student in time for the upcoming football season. A no-contact order stayed in effect.

The complainant later sued under Title IX, arguing that the university’s handling of the readmission amounted to deliberate indifference to the harassment she had experienced.

Why the Seventh Circuit Ruled for the University

The majority emphasized a principle institutions have relied on since Davis was decided in 1999: courts evaluate an institution’s overall response to a report of harassment rather than judging whether every decision within that response was the right one. As Bloomberg Law reported, the court found that the university acted quickly to separate the complainant from the responding student, offered supportive measures, carried out a disciplinary process, imposed a significant sanction, and kept a no-contact order in place that appeared effective following readmission.

Even assuming the chancellor’s readmission decision was shaped by outside pressure, the majority held that no reasonable jury could find the university’s overall response clearly unreasonable under Davis. Negligence, an imperfect process, or disagreement with an institution’s judgment call is not, on its own, enough to establish deliberate indifference.

This Was Still a Close Case

Institutions should be cautious about reading this decision as permission to relax their processes. The en banc ruling followed a very different outcome at the panel stage. A three-judge panel had ruled in the complainant’s favor in 2025, reversing summary judgment for the university, before that decision was vacated when the full court agreed to rehear the case. Even at the en banc stage, four of the twelve judges dissented and would have sent the case to a jury.

The dissent focused on the speed of the readmission decision, the university’s choice not to obtain the full trial transcript before acting, and the complainant’s exclusion from the readmission process. The dissent also raised disputed allegations that the no-contact order had been violated after readmission, though the majority did not treat that as significant to its ruling.

What Has Historically Happened Under Davis

Since the Supreme Court decided Davis in 1999, a case that itself arose from peer harassment in an elementary school, courts have generally treated institutional liability for student-on-student harassment as intentionally narrow. According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, a plaintiff typically has to show that the school had actual knowledge of the harassment, that the harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive enough to deny access to education, that the school had substantial control over the harasser and the setting, and that the school’s response amounted to deliberate indifference, meaning a response that was clearly unreasonable given what the school knew.

Because the standard is intentionally demanding, schools, districts, and institutions frequently prevail on summary judgment when they can show a prompt investigation, supportive measures, meaningful discipline, and ongoing monitoring, even where a plaintiff can point to procedural flaws or argue the school could have done more. In that respect, this decision fits a broader pattern in Title IX damages litigation, where courts generally defer to institutional judgment as long as the response falls within a reasonable range.

Circuit Splits Remain and Still Matter

One long-running split among the federal circuits concerns whether a single instance of student-on-student sexual assault can satisfy Davis’ requirement that harassment be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. Some circuits, including the First and Fourth, have recognized that a single assault may meet that standard, while others, including the Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh, generally require additional harassment or a broader showing of pervasiveness. The Seventh Circuit did not resolve that question in this case, so institutions operating across multiple states should keep watching how it develops.

Courts are also divided over whether liability requires evidence of further harassment after a school receives notice. Some circuits require proof that a plaintiff experienced additional harassment, while others have held that leaving a student vulnerable to further harm, or effectively cutting off their access to education, can be enough on its own. The Supreme Court has never resolved this question, which makes it one of the more consequential open issues in peer harassment litigation.

A third emerging issue involves institutional responsibility for misconduct that happens off campus. Some courts read Davis broadly enough to reach off-campus conduct when a school exercises sufficient control over the parties or the setting, while others take a narrower view and conclude that schools generally lack that kind of control over off-campus apartments, private residences, and similar settings. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged this issue but did not resolve it, because the university had not properly raised the argument. Given how much of campus life now happens off campus, through housing, athletics travel, Greek life, internships, and study abroad, this is a question schools, districts, and institutions should expect to see again.

Takeaways

The most important practical lesson from this case is that the original investigation was not what generated litigation risk. It was the later decision to revisit the sanction. Title IX does not impose liability for every imperfect investigation or every controversial administrative call, and institutions retain real discretion in how they respond to reports of sexual harassment. That discretion is not unlimited, though, and when institutions revisit a disciplinary outcome through readmission, reinstatement, or a sanction change, that decision deserves the same rigor as the original process. In practice, that means:

• Documenting the rationale for any change to a prior disciplinary decision
• Making sure decision-makers have access to all relevant information before acting
• Insulating decision-makers from donor, athletic, alumni, trustee, or public pressure
• Keeping careful records of communications related to the decision
• Evaluating whether additional supportive measures or safety planning are needed

Nearly three decades after Davis, Title IX institutional liability remains an evolving area of the law. This decision reinforces that the deliberate indifference standard is intentionally difficult for plaintiffs to meet, but it also shows that courts continue to scrutinize how institutions handle readmission and other post-resolution decisions. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on the circuit splits over single-incident liability, post-notice harassment, and off-campus conduct, schools, districts, and institutions are well served by keeping their decision-making well documented, procedurally sound, and insulated from outside pressure. Winning on summary judgment often depends as much on how well an institution can show why it acted as on what it actually did. ICS’s can help your institution stress-test its readmission and reconsideration processes before they are tested in litigation.