This week, one of the most closely watched Title IX disputes in higher education is escalating fast with direct implications for every type of institution.

On March 6, the California State University (CSU) system and San José State University (SJSU) filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Title IX determination by the ED’s OCR. Rather than complying with OCR’s demands as the University of Pennsylvania did last summer in a similar case involving a transgender swimmer, SJSU and CSU chose to sue to prevent potential federal funding cuts. The case highlights a growing compliance risk for institutions: federal enforcement actions that reinterpret past conduct under new policy frameworks.

The federal investigation

The dispute traces back to February 2025, when OCR launched a directed investigation into SJSU’s athletics policies. The investigation was pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14201, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” and focused on allegations that the university allowed a transgender student-athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team and retaliated against female athletes and staff who raised concerns.

OCR found that SJSU actively recruited and allowed the student-athlete to compete on the women’s indoor and beach volleyball teams, and reportedly instructed members of the coaching staff not to tell the female players that the athlete was a male. As a result, female athletes on the team shared locker rooms and hotel rooms with the student while being unaware of the athlete’s biological sex. In January 2026, OCR issued a Letter of Findings concluding that SJSU violated Title IX and proposing a resolution agreement requiring the university to revise its athletics policies and issue statements affirming compliance with OCR’s interpretation of Title IX.

OCR issued a proposed Resolution Agreement requiring SJSU to, among other things, issue public statements affirming biology-based definitions of sex, separate sports and intimate facilities by biological sex, restore athletic records to affected female athletes, and send personalized apology letters to every woman who competed on or against the women’s volleyball team during the 2022-2024 seasons.

The university’s lawsuit and the federal government’s response

Rather than accept the proposed resolution, CSU and SJSU filed suit in federal court on March 6 to challenge the federal government’s action. The universities argue that OCR has faulted them for following decisions from federal courts that bound SJSU, and that OCR has no authority to do that. They are asking the court to set aside OCR’s Letter of Findings and proposed Resolution Agreement and to prevent the ED from terminating, freezing, or refusing to grant SJSU’s federal funding.

The complaint argues that the ED is attempting to retroactively punish the university for conduct that complied with the law at the time, including NCAA eligibility rules and then-existing interpretations of Title IX. From 2022-2024 the universities contend they followed governing athletic policies and legal guidance that recognized protections for transgender students, and argue the federal government cannot now reinterpret Title IX and impose new conditions tied to federal funding after the fact.

And the federal government responded quickly! On March 12, Education Secretary Linda McMahon gave SJSU 10 days to reach an agreement or face potential funding cuts and a referral to the DOJ. OCR’s letter to SJSU stated that enforcement action may include the initiation of administrative proceedings to suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue federal funding, or refer to DOJ.

Secretary McMahon was pointed in her public messaging: “Protecting women’s sports is nonnegotiable. After we found SJSU in violation of Title IX, they refused to negotiate a resolution. SJSU, you have ten days to cease your discriminatory practices,” McMahon wrote on X.

As of this edition, the case remains active in federal court, and a judge has not yet ruled on SJSU’s request for an injunction.

The compliance issue beneath the politics

Regardless of where institutions fall in the policy debate over transgender athletics, this case raises a structural compliance problem:

What happens when federal civil rights enforcement shifts between administrations and is applied to past conduct?

OCR’s current interpretation marks a significant departure from earlier approaches and places institutions like SJSU in a difficult retrospective position. For institutions as well as K-12 schools and districts, at least three distinct risks emerge from this case:

• Retroactive enforcement risk: when guidance or interpretations change between administrations.
• Funding leverage: OCR’s proposed resolution agreements and funding threats are increasingly being used as enforcement tools and not just as last resorts.
• Conflicting legal obligations: when federal interpretations collide with court precedent, state law, or athletic governing bodies.

In other words, institutions may face enforcement actions not just about what they are doing now, but what they did under prior guidance.

Tuesday Takeaways

Here are the things we think compliance leaders should do right now:

Audit how your institution handles complaints about contested issues. The retaliation and complaint-handling failures in the OCR findings are arguably as significant as the underlying athletics question. Make sure your Title IX processes work equitably for everyone who files a complaint and that your institution is not creating its own exposure by discouraging or penalizing complainants.

Document the “why” behind past decisions. If your institution made decisions based on then-current NCAA rules, state law, or federal guidance, document that rationale clearly. If enforcement ever reaches back to that conduct, a contemporaneous paper trail demonstrating good-faith compliance with applicable law at the time is your first line of defense.

Watch the Supreme Court. In January 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involving state laws restricting transgender student-athlete participation. Decisions are expected in June 2026 and could significantly reshape the legal landscape – in either direction – for institutions navigating these issues.

A broader takeaway: when federal policy shifts quickly, particularly in contested areas like athletics, gender identity, or campus speech, compliance leaders must manage the risk that today’s interpretation of Title IX may be applied to yesterday’s decisions. That is not a hypothetical anymore. It is happening now, and SJSU is the case study.