Education Department admits it violated court order in Title IX cases

Mattson said the department failed to follow a 2022 federal injunction that blocked the agency from using Biden administration Title IX guidance in states covered by the order.

The guidance said Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination included discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“As summarized below, the agency fully substantiated the allegations,” OSC Chief Counsel Charles Baldis wrote in a June 9 letter to the president.

The issue dates back to Jan. 20, 2021, when President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13988. The order told federal agencies to combat discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

In June 2021, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued three guidance documents.

Twenty states sued the department. On July 15, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee blocked the department from using those documents against the states that sued. The Sixth Circuit upheld the injunction in 2024.

The plaintiff states included Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Arizona later withdrew from the case.

As The Center Square previously reported, Empower Oversight said last fall that Mattson had warned federal officials that OCR kept processing complaints involving gender identity and sexual orientation despite the court order.

The department’s first report to OSC, dated Dec. 12, 2024, rejected Mattson’s allegation.

That first report said the department believed the injunction only barred OCR from relying on the 2021 guidance documents. It said the order did not stop OCR from investigating all Title IX claims involving LGBTQ students, sexual orientation or gender identity.

OSC then asked the department for a supplemental report.

“After further investigation, ED changed its position,” Baldis wrote.

The supplemental report “fully substantiated” the whistleblower’s allegations, according to OSC.

OSC said the later investigation found “significant shortcomings” in the first report. It said the department failed to review key materials, interview more relevant witnesses, and directly answer whether OCR, under then-Assistant Secretary Catherine Lhamon, failed to follow the injunction.

“In fact, ED found that OCR’s leadership actively engaged in efforts to thwart at least one OCR regional office, Region VII, from following the plain and unambiguous meaning of the court order, and may also have engaged in actions to conceal those efforts, including the use of coercion or intimidation,” Baldis wrote.

OSC also said the department’s first report failed to provide or mention a 25-page memo from a Kansas City regional director that backed up many of Mattson’s concerns.

Baldis said the agency found the regional director and Mattson “highly credible.”

Empower Oversight, which represents Mattson, said the final report vindicates him.

“This report is a clear vindication for Tim and the rule of law,” Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt said in a statement. “The Office of Civil Rights defied a direct federal court order and continued to target schools for lawful policies.”

Leavitt said federal officials must hold people accountable.

“Unfortunately, however, staff in senior supervisory positions who aided, abetted, or quietly complied with the illegal actions are still in positions of authority,” Leavitt said. “The federal government needs to hold them accountable.”

OSC said the department’s Office of General Counsel has partnered with the Office of Human Resources to investigate retaliation and hostile work environment concerns. The department plans to take corrective action, if needed, including discipline against current or former employees and relief for affected workers.

Baldis urged the department to finish its internal investigation, discipline current or former employees if warranted, audit OCR enforcement actions in covered states, and make the results public.

He also recommended a possible monetary award for Mattson because of the importance of the disclosure and the risks he took.

“The substantiated allegations — that senior leadership directed or facilitated the circumvention of a binding federal injunction over multiple years and across multiple offices — raise serious concerns that demand accountability,” Baldis wrote in the letter.