The Women's Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education

Background

The Women’s Student Union (WSU), described in the opinion as an approved student body association of the Berkeley Unified School District, sued the U.S. Department of Education. WSU sought to set aside regulations adopted in 2020 concerning the Department’s administrative enforcement of Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. WSU alleged that the regulations violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they conflicted with Title IX’s text and purpose.

According to WSU, the 2020 regulations narrowed the harassment covered by the Department’s administrative enforcement. WSU identified limits involving the severity and pervasiveness of conduct, where the conduct occurred, the school’s actual knowledge, and the school’s response. WSU alleged that these changes would reduce investigations and remedies for students experiencing sexual harassment and would deprive WSU of an important tool in seeking policy changes at Berkeley High School.

In February 2021, WSU filed an administrative complaint with the Department’s Office for Civil Rights concerning alleged Title IX violations by the Berkeley Unified School District. WSU asserted that the Department would not investigate or provide relief under the 2020 regulations. The Department later stated in its briefing and at oral argument that it was reviewing the complaint and had requested additional information from WSU.

Motion and standing rules

The Department moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court decided the motion on the standing issue. Article III standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will remedy the injury.

The court considered both organizational standing and associational standing. Organizational standing permits an organization to sue for its own injury. Associational standing permits an organization to sue on behalf of members who would have standing individually, when the other requirements for representative litigation are met.

Organizational standing

For organizational standing, the court explained that an organization must show that the challenged conduct frustrated its mission and that it diverted resources to address that frustration. The court addressed the first requirement and found it missing, so it did not decide whether WSU had diverted resources.

The court concluded that WSU’s stated mission was to advocate for protective school policies and train students about their rights and responsibilities, not to ensure that particular harassment incidents were investigated. The court reasoned that conducting investigations and meeting with school administrators could be ordinary ways for WSU to pursue its mission, rather than injuries caused by the regulations. WSU also did not explain how those activities were contrary to its mission or why they were less effective because of the regulations.

The court further found that WSU had not alleged specific facts showing that the regulations had caused, or imminently would cause, a reduction in harassment reports at Berkeley High School. Its prediction that the regulations would reduce reporting was conclusory. The court also noted that the school could still investigate harassment, adopt protective policies, and allow WSU to train students despite the regulations.

The court distinguished cases involving organizations whose missions included representing or providing legal assistance to sexual-harassment survivors. WSU’s mission, as described in the complaint, did not include those services. The court therefore held that WSU had not plausibly alleged that the regulations frustrated its organizational mission.

Associational standing

The court also held that WSU lacked associational standing. WSU needed to show that at least one member had suffered, or was likely imminently to suffer, an injury traceable to the regulations and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision.

The court found that WSU’s allegations were speculative and general. The complaint did not identify facts showing that the school had disregarded a particular harassment complaint, that a student had declined to report harassment because of the regulations, or that reports at the school or district had noticeably declined. The court therefore held that WSU had not alleged with sufficient specificity how its members had been injured or would imminently be injured.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the Department’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing with leave to amend. WSU was ordered to file an amended complaint by September 19, 2021. The original complaint was dismissed. The pending motions to intervene were moot because they were based on the original complaint, but the proposed intervenors could refile those motions after WSU filed an amended complaint. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 19, 35, and 61.