Texas Title IX Defense Guide

What Title IX Actually Is — and What It Isn’t

Title IX is a federal civil rights statute, not a criminal law. It prohibits sex discrimination — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — in any education program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. Compliance is enforced administratively by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and privately through implied damages actions in federal court.

The statutory text is brief. 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Most of the operational law lives in the implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 106 and in the university’s own grievance policy adopted under those regulations.

For a respondent, three features of Title IX shape everything that follows. First, the proceeding is the university’s — not the State of Texas’s and not a court’s. The decision-maker is a hearing officer or panel chosen by the institution, the rules of evidence are heavily relaxed, and there is no constitutional right to a jury. Second, the consequences run on a parallel track to any criminal exposure. A finding of responsibility can produce suspension, expulsion, transcript notation, loss of housing, loss of financial aid, and a public record that follows the student into graduate admissions and licensed professions — even if no criminal charge ever issues. Third, the timeline is short. The respondent’s strategic choices in the first 10–14 days after notice often dictate the outcome.

This guide is written for respondents at Texas universities and their families. For the complainant’s perspective and the litigation framework under Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999), and Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998), see the Department of Education’s OCR resources page.

The 2020 vs 2024 Regulatory Whiplash — and Where Texas Sits Now

Between 2020 and 2024, the federal Title IX rule changed twice, and the second change was promptly enjoined as to most Texas universities. Knowing which version of the rule applies to a given proceeding is the threshold question in every Title IX defense.

The 2020 Regulations (effective August 14, 2020) created the modern respondent-facing procedural floor. They required live hearings with cross-examination by an advisor of the respondent’s choice, mandated written notice of allegations with sufficient detail, restricted Title IX jurisdiction to conduct occurring in the United States and within the recipient’s “education program or activity,” and permitted institutions to choose between the preponderance and clear-and-convincing standards (so long as the same standard applied across all student-conduct cases). See 34 CFR §106.45 (2020).

The 2024 Regulations (effective August 1, 2024) softened or removed several of those respondent protections. They eliminated the categorical live-hearing requirement, replacing it with an “individualized assessment” framework; allowed the investigator and the decision-maker to be the same person under certain conditions; expanded jurisdiction to off-campus conduct and online conduct that creates a hostile environment within the program; and required institutions to apply the preponderance standard unless they use a higher standard in all other comparable proceedings. The 2024 rule is codified at 34 CFR §106.46.

Federal courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and elsewhere preliminarily enjoined the 2024 rule across most of the South before its effective date. As of mid-2026, a number of Texas public institutions continue to operate under the 2020 framework while the litigation runs. Private Texas universities adopted varying policies; some preserved the 2020 cross-examination model voluntarily. The first question your advisor asks the Title IX office should be: “Under which regulatory version is this matter being processed, and where is that documented in your current grievance procedures?”

For the procedural mechanics under each version, see our satellites on the 2024 Regulations respondent guide and the Title IX investigation timeline.

Which Texas Universities Are Subject to Title IX

Title IX applies to any educational institution that receives federal financial assistance. In Texas this functionally means every accredited public university (UT System, Texas A&M System, Texas State System, University of Houston System, University of North Texas System, Texas Tech System, Texas Woman’s University); every accredited private institution that participates in federal student aid (Baylor, SMU, TCU, Rice, Trinity, Abilene Christian, and most other private campuses); and most community colleges.

Each institution adopts its own grievance procedures within the federal regulatory floor. The procedures must be published on the university’s website and are routinely revised. The version that applies to a given respondent’s case is typically the version in effect on the date the formal complaint is filed — not the date of the underlying alleged conduct. Read the current version on the institution’s Title IX office page and download a PDF copy on the day notice arrives; policies change without notice and proving which version applied later is easier if you have a contemporaneous copy.

Texas also layers state-specific obligations. Tex. Education Code §§51.281–51.293 impose mandatory reporting requirements on certain campus employees, require an amnesty policy for complainants and witnesses who report alcohol or drug use, and require an annual report from each public institution to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. These state provisions sit on top of the federal regulations and occasionally produce conflicts — for example, when a Texas employee’s state reporting duty is triggered by information that the federal regulations would treat as confidential.

For private institutions that do not accept federal funding (a small number of religious schools in Texas), Title IX does not apply at all; the proceeding is governed solely by the school’s own contract-of-enrollment policies. The defenses available in that posture are state-law breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith — not federal due process or Title IX.

The Notice of Allegations — and Your First 72 Hours

Title IX procedure begins with a Notice of Allegations. Under both the 2020 and 2024 rules, the notice must identify (i) the parties involved, (ii) the conduct alleged to constitute sex-based misconduct, (iii) the policy provisions allegedly violated, (iv) the date and location of the alleged incident if known, and (v) a statement that the respondent is presumed not responsible until a determination is made at the conclusion of the grievance process. See 34 CFR §106.45(b)(2).

The first 72 hours after the notice arrives are when the largest preventable mistakes happen. The most common ones we see in Texas matters:

• Sending the complainant a text or social-media message. Any contact — even an apology, even an “I’m sorry you feel this way” — can be charged as retaliation or harassment under 34 CFR §106.71 and is almost always introduced against the respondent at hearing. Texas no-contact directives often issue with the notice; violating one is grounds for immediate interim suspension regardless of the underlying merits.
• Sitting for an intake interview without an advisor present. Schools are not required to delay the first investigator interview for advisor selection. They will gently encourage you to speak now. Decline politely in writing, state that you intend to participate with an advisor, and request a scheduling accommodation.
• Deleting messages or photographs. Spoliation of evidence — even of material the respondent believes is innocuous or embarrassing — produces an adverse inference at hearing and may also be charged as a separate code-of-conduct violation.
• Talking to roommates, teammates, or fraternity members. Any of them may be called as witnesses; what they heard you say in the first week becomes a recorded statement that follows you for the rest of the proceeding.
• Posting on social media. Investigators routinely pull public social-media activity through the investigation window; what you post in week one is exhibit one at the hearing in month four.

The single most important affirmative step in the first 72 hours is selecting an advisor of choice. Under both regulatory versions you have the right to be assisted by an advisor in any meeting or proceeding; under the 2020 framework only the advisor (not the respondent personally) may conduct cross-examination at the live hearing. Choose the advisor before you say anything substantive to anyone at the institution.

The Investigation Phase

The investigation is conducted by the institution’s Title IX investigator. Under the 2020 rule, the investigator is a separate role from the decision-maker. Under the 2024 rule, the same person may serve both roles unless local policy requires separation. The investigator’s job is to gather evidence, interview the parties and witnesses, and produce an investigative report that summarizes the relevant evidence and presents both parties’ positions.

Investigators do not, as a rule, decide whether the respondent is responsible. They build the record on which a separate adjudicator will decide. That matters strategically because everything the respondent says to the investigator is reduced to writing, becomes part of the investigative report, and is reviewed by the eventual decision-maker who will never meet the respondent in person until the live hearing (if any).

Texas universities typically interview the complainant first, then witnesses identified by the complainant, then the respondent and the respondent’s witnesses. The respondent ordinarily has the right to:

• Receive a written summary of the complainant’s allegations in sufficient detail to permit a response;
• Submit a written statement responding to the allegations and identifying witnesses and exculpatory evidence;
• Inspect and review the evidence the investigator obtained that is directly related to the allegations — under the 2020 rule this happens before the investigator’s final report is issued, in a 10-business-day comment window (the “evidence inspection period”);
• Submit follow-up questions and request additional investigation;
• Review the draft investigative report and submit a written response before it is finalized.

The 10-business-day evidence inspection window under 34 CFR §106.45(b)(5)(vi) is the single highest-leverage moment in the investigation. The respondent’s entire universe of fact development — impeachment evidence, alibi witnesses, contradictory text messages, the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements — should be submitted in writing during that window. Failure to develop the record during the inspection period almost always forecloses doing so at hearing.

For a deeper walkthrough of the investigator’s evidence-gathering tactics and how to respond, see our satellite on Title IX investigation timeline phases and the Title IX evidence rules.

The Live Hearing Procedure

Under the 2020 Title IX rule, postsecondary institutions must hold a live hearing at which both parties may present evidence, examine each other through their advisors, and respond to questions from the decision-maker. Hearings may be conducted virtually, with the parties in separate rooms and the witness visible to all participants in real time. The 2024 rule made the live hearing optional, replacing it with an “individualized assessment” framework — but as discussed above, the 2024 rule is enjoined across most of Texas, and many institutions continue to use the live-hearing model.

The hearing usually proceeds in this order: opening remarks by the decision-maker; statement of the allegations; complainant’s direct testimony; cross-examination by the respondent’s advisor; complainant’s witnesses; respondent’s direct testimony; cross-examination by the complainant’s advisor; respondent’s witnesses; closing statements; and adjournment. The decision-maker issues a written determination within a defined window after the hearing — usually 10 to 21 days.

Evidence rules at hearing are extremely relaxed. The rules of evidence used in Texas state-court litigation — including hearsay rules, foundation requirements, and authentication standards — do not apply. The decision-maker may consider any evidence that is “relevant” under the local policy. Practically, this means that hearsay, character evidence, and prior bad acts are routinely admitted on both sides. The strategic response is to develop affirmative evidence rather than rely on the exclusion of unfavorable material.

Two evidentiary protections are constants across both regulatory versions. First, the complainant’s prior sexual history is generally inadmissible — the Title IX analog to a rape-shield rule — subject to two narrow exceptions: prior sexual conduct between the complainant and respondent offered to show consent, and prior sexual history offered to prove that someone other than the respondent committed the alleged conduct. Second, a party’s medical, psychological, or counseling records cannot be used without the party’s voluntary written consent.

For tactical hearing-day preparation, see our interactive Title IX Hearing Prep generator and the satellite on Title IX live-hearing cross-examination.

Cross-Examination and the Advisor’s Role

Cross-examination is where Title IX hearings are won or lost. Under the 2020 rule, cross-examination must be conducted by each party’s advisor of choice — not by the parties personally. The decision-maker rules on each question for relevance before the witness answers. If a party does not have an advisor, the institution must provide one at no cost.

The Sixth Circuit’s decisions in Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017), and Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018), established that where a public university’s disciplinary decision turns on a credibility determination, the Due Process Clause requires “some form of cross-examination” in front of the factfinder. The Sixth Circuit reaffirmed in John Doe v. Michigan State Univ., 989 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2021), that the cross-examination must allow the respondent to “probe the claimant’s credibility” and the factfinder to observe witness demeanor — but does not entitle the respondent to “unlimited” or “uncircumscribed” cross-examination. See id. at 432 (“Doe was given an in person hearing that took place over the course of three days… Doe had the opportunity to cross-examine both women through his counsel”).

Two practical implications. First, the advisor is functioning as cross-examination counsel; the choice of advisor materially affects whether the credibility contest is winnable. Untrained advisors — including well-meaning parents and licensed attorneys without Title IX experience — routinely lose cases by asking compound questions, failing to use prior statements as impeachment, and missing the cross-examination opportunity to lock the complainant into a version of events that contradicts the documentary record. Second, the Sixth Circuit’s holding — while not binding on the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas — is the most-cited cross-examination authority in the country and persuades many Texas adjudicators on the constitutional minimum.

Note also that the Sixth Circuit observed in Doe v. Mich. State that “a university violates due process by expelling a student for sexual misconduct in a credibility contest if his accuser appears at a Baum hearing but refuses to answer any questions on cross-examination.” Id. at 437 (Nalbandian, J., concurring). Where the complainant declines to answer particular questions selectively, the respondent’s advisor should put each refused question on the record with proffered relevance, then raise the refusals as a procedural-defect ground on appeal.

Standard of Evidence — Preponderance vs Clear-and-Convincing

Under both the 2020 and 2024 rules, the institution must apply the same standard of proof in Title IX matters as it applies in other comparable student-conduct proceedings. Most Texas institutions apply the preponderance of the evidence standard — the lowest civil standard, requiring the decision-maker to conclude that it is more likely than not that the respondent committed the alleged conduct.

A handful of Texas institutions — primarily smaller private universities — use the clear and convincing evidence standard, an intermediate standard requiring the decision-maker to find it highly probable that the respondent committed the alleged conduct. The clear-and-convincing standard is meaningfully harder for the institution to meet in he-said/she-said cases.

The standard of proof is fixed at the institutional level by published policy; it is not a matter the respondent can negotiate at the threshold of a particular proceeding. But the standard powerfully shapes hearing strategy. Under preponderance, every adverse inference the decision-maker can fairly draw tilts toward responsibility. Under clear-and-convincing, the same record may not clear the threshold. Tactical implications: under preponderance, the respondent’s case must affirmatively prove non-responsibility, not merely create doubt; under clear-and-convincing, raising substantial doubt about any element is often sufficient.

For analysis specific to each standard’s mechanics, see our satellite on Title IX burden-of-proof standards.

Off-Campus Conduct and Jurisdictional Limits

One of the most consequential differences between the 2020 and 2024 rules is jurisdictional reach. The 2020 rule limited Title IX to conduct in the “education program or activity” of the recipient and within the United States. Off-campus conduct generally fell outside Title IX unless it occurred at a recognized fraternity or sorority, on university-leased property, or in a program controlled by the institution. The 2024 rule expanded jurisdiction to off-campus and online conduct that creates a hostile environment within the recipient’s program.

For Texas respondents this jurisdictional question often determines the entire outcome. Conduct that occurred at a private apartment, in a hotel room during a break, or at an off-campus party with no university affiliation may simply be outside Title IX’s reach under the 2020 framework. Where the institution attempts to extend Title IX jurisdiction past the regulatory floor, raising the jurisdictional defect early — ideally in writing during the evidence inspection period — preserves the issue for both administrative appeal and federal lawsuit.

Even if off-campus conduct is outside Title IX, it may still fall within the institution’s general code of conduct or, under Texas law, within the criminal jurisdiction of the county where the conduct occurred. Coordinated defense across all three potential forums — Title IX, student conduct, and criminal — is essential. See our satellite on Title IX off-campus conduct jurisdiction and the related blog post Title IX off-campus jurisdiction explained.

Sanctions — From Warning to Expulsion

A finding of responsibility produces a sanction. Sanctions are typically imposed by the decision-maker as part of the written determination, or by a separate sanctioning officer following the determination. The full Texas sanctioning ladder is approximately as follows:

The transcript notation is often the most damaging long-term consequence. Texas public institutions must, under Tex. Educ. Code §51.9364, place a permanent notation on the transcript of any student who is suspended or expelled for, or who withdraws pending investigation of, an offense related to sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking. Removing or expunging the notation is procedurally difficult and almost always requires either a successful appeal or post-determination federal litigation.

For sanction-specific strategy and the proportionality analysis that adjudicators typically apply, see our satellite on Title IX sanctions and discipline.

Appeals — Procedural Defects and New Evidence

Under 34 CFR §106.45(b)(8), both parties have the right to appeal the dismissal of a formal complaint or any determination regarding responsibility on at least three bases:

1. Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome;
2. New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the determination and could affect the outcome; and
3. The Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker had a conflict of interest or bias that affected the outcome.

Texas institutions typically permit one level of internal appeal, decided by an appellate officer or panel that did not participate in the original determination. Appeals are generally decided on the written record; new evidence is admitted only on the second ground above, and only after a threshold showing of unavailability and materiality.

The most successful appellate grounds in our Texas Title IX practice are: (i) the decision-maker failed to address impeachment evidence that the respondent placed on the record; (ii) cross-examination was improperly limited under the local relevance standard; (iii) the institution applied a different procedural rule to the parties (often without acknowledging it); and (iv) the decision-maker decided credibility without articulating the basis for the determination in the written outcome — the so-called “black-box credibility finding” that Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), held insufficient.

The internal appeal is also the procedural exhaustion mechanism for any subsequent federal lawsuit. Issues not raised in the internal appeal are generally waived for federal review on a Title IX or due-process theory. Treat the appeal brief as the trial-court record for any later litigation; the federal court will be reluctant to consider arguments and evidence the institution never had the chance to address.

Parallel Criminal Exposure — Texas Penal Code Overlaps

Where the underlying conduct could constitute a crime, Title IX runs parallel to potential criminal exposure under Texas law. Common overlaps:

Tex. Penal Code §22.011 — Sexual Assault

Penetration without consent. Second-degree felony (2–20 years, up to $10,000 fine); first-degree if specified aggravators apply.

Tex. Penal Code §22.021 — Aggravated Sexual Assault

Sexual assault with serious-bodily-injury, weapon-use, or victim-class aggravators. First-degree felony (5–99 years or life); 25-year mandatory minimum for under-14 victims.

Tex. Penal Code §42.07 — Harassment

Repeated electronic communications, threats, false reports. Class B misdemeanor (up to 180 days, $2,000 fine); Class A if specified prior conviction.

Tex. Penal Code §42.072 — Stalking

Repeated course of conduct causing reasonable fear. Third-degree felony (2–10 years).

Tex. Penal Code §21.16 — Unlawful Disclosure of Intimate Visual Material

State-court companion to revenge-porn allegations. State-jail felony (180 days to 2 years).

The interaction between Title IX and parallel criminal proceedings is one of the highest-stakes strategic questions in any defense. Anything the respondent says in the Title IX investigation can be subpoenaed by a Texas grand jury, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or by the complainant in a parallel civil suit. The Title IX hearing transcript becomes Brady material in the criminal case and impeachment material at the civil trial. Coordination between Title IX counsel and criminal defense counsel from the first day — ideally with both roles handled by the same firm — eliminates the cross-track damage that uncoordinated defenses routinely produce.

For the parallel-tracks analysis in depth, see our satellite on Title IX vs criminal proceedings and our pillars on Texas sex crimes defense and Texas stalking defense.

Federal Lawsuits — Stigma-Plus Due Process and Title IX Sex Bias

When the internal appeal is exhausted and the respondent has been suspended, expelled, or noted on the transcript, federal litigation is the next available remedy. Two parallel theories are typically pleaded.

Fourteenth Amendment due process — available against public Texas institutions but not private ones. The Seventh Circuit in Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J.), held that a male student adequately alleged a protected liberty interest under the “stigma-plus” doctrine where the university “inflicted reputational damage” by “wrongfully branding him as a sex offender” while “chang[ing] his legal status by suspending him, subjecting him to readmission requirements, and causing the loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship.” Id. at 661–62. On the procedural side, Purdue held that withholding the evidence the institution relied on in adjudicating guilt “was itself sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair,” and that adjudicators who admitted they had not read the investigative report had “decided that John was guilty based on the accusation rather than the evidence.” Id. at 663.

Title IX sex bias — available against both public and private institutions that receive federal funds. Purdue held that to state a Title IX claim the respondent must allege facts raising a “plausible inference that the university discriminated against him ‘on the basis of sex.’” Id. at 667. The Seventh Circuit declined to adopt formal doctrinal tests (such as the “erroneous outcome” or “selective enforcement” frameworks used in some other circuits), preferring the “more direct” question of whether sex was a motivating factor. The respondent must allege both general institutional pressure to be tough on male respondents and specific circumstantial evidence of sex bias in his particular proceeding; the “Dear Colleague” letter and similar OCR pressure provide a backdrop but, “standing alone, are obviously not enough.” Id. at 668–69.

The damages model varies. Purdue recognized that an expungement-of-record injunction is available even where the suspension has been served, because “John’s marred record is a continuing harm for which he can seek redress.” Id. at 666. Where the respondent has lost a scholarship, employment, or admission to a graduate program, the federal complaint should plead specific compensatory damages tied to those losses. Federal courts in the Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas have entertained these claims, though success rates vary materially by judge.

Note that the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in John Doe v. Univ. of Mich., 78 F.4th 929 (6th Cir. 2023), tightened standing and ripeness requirements for pre-determination challenges: “The deprivation of process alone, without some concrete harm flowing from that deprivation, cannot constitute an injury that conveys standing.” Id. at 949. Federal claims are generally most viable post-determination, when the suspension or expulsion has actually issued.

K-12 vs Higher-Education Title IX Differences

Title IX applies to both K-12 and postsecondary institutions, but the procedural framework differs substantially. The 2020 rule’s live-hearing requirement applies only to postsecondary institutions. K-12 districts must offer the parties an equivalent opportunity to submit written questions to the other party and witnesses, but they are not required to convene a live hearing.

For K-12 respondents, the practical defense is therefore primarily written-submission-driven. The investigator’s report and the written cross-questions become the core evidentiary record. The standard of proof is set at the district’s discretion (under the same equality constraint applicable to postsecondary institutions). Sanctions in the K-12 context can include long-term suspension, expulsion, alternative-school placement, and — for older students — criminal referral.

Because K-12 sanctions intersect with compulsory-attendance laws and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for special-education students, additional federal protections may apply. The IDEA’s “manifestation determination” analysis under 20 U.S.C. §1415(k) often modifies what sanctions are available where the alleged conduct is related to a documented disability.

For K-12 specific guidance, see our satellite on K-12 Title IX defense.

Texas-Specific Statutory Layers

Texas has enacted a series of campus sexual-misconduct statutes that operate alongside federal Title IX. The most relevant provisions:

Tex. Educ. Code §51.281

Defines “sex-based discrimination,” “sexual harassment,” “sexual assault,” “dating violence,” and “stalking” for purposes of Texas postsecondary institutions.

Tex. Educ. Code §51.282

Mandatory reporting for certain campus employees; failure to report is a misdemeanor with possible termination.

Tex. Educ. Code §51.284

Required amnesty for students who report sexual misconduct while involved in alcohol or drug-related student-conduct violations.

Tex. Educ. Code §51.295

Required transcript notation for students suspended, expelled, or withdrawn pending investigation for specified sexual-misconduct offenses.

Tex. Educ. Code §51.9366

Required annual reporting by each Texas public institution to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, including aggregated outcome data.

Several of these statutes generate conflicts with the federal floor. The mandatory-reporting provisions under §51.282 require employees to forward information that the federal rule treats as confidential; the amnesty provisions under §51.284 occasionally conflict with student-conduct-code drug policies; and the transcript-notation requirement under §51.295 has been challenged on procedural-due-process grounds in recent federal litigation. A Texas Title IX defense is incomplete if it addresses only the federal regulatory floor and ignores these state-law layers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need to hire an attorney for a Title IX case?

The federal regulations give you the right to an advisor of choice, who can be (but does not have to be) an attorney. Whether you need an attorney specifically depends on three factors: the severity of the potential sanction (anything that could produce suspension, expulsion, or transcript notation is high-stakes), the existence of parallel criminal exposure (always retain counsel where any criminal investigation has begun or is foreseeable), and the institution’s standard of proof. As a rule of thumb in Texas: any allegation of sexual assault or sexual misconduct that could lead to suspension warrants licensed counsel, not a parent or untrained advisor.

Can I stay silent during a Title IX investigation?

Yes. There is no compelled-testimony rule in Title IX. The decision-maker may, however, “draw such reasonable inferences from the parties’ statements as may be appropriate” under most institutional policies — meaning silence may be used adversely. The strategic question is rarely “say nothing” vs. “say everything”; it is what to submit, in writing, at which stage, after thorough development of the documentary record.

What’s the difference between the 2020 and 2024 Title IX regulations?

The 2020 rule (DeVos) required live hearings with cross-examination by an advisor of choice, narrowed Title IX jurisdiction to on-campus conduct, and permitted institutions to choose between preponderance and clear-and-convincing. The 2024 rule (Cardona) eliminated the live-hearing requirement, expanded jurisdiction to off-campus and online conduct creating a hostile environment, and required preponderance unless a higher standard was used in all comparable proceedings. Most of the 2024 rule is enjoined across Texas as of mid-2026, so the operative framework at most Texas institutions remains the 2020 model. Confirm with the Title IX office in writing which version applies to your matter.

Can my university find me responsible if my accuser doesn’t show up to the hearing?

Under the 2020 rule, no statement of a party or witness who does not submit to cross-examination may be relied upon by the decision-maker. The Sixth Circuit in Doe v. Baum reinforced this principle on constitutional grounds. If the complainant appears but refuses to answer particular questions, the decision-maker may consider only the questions that were answered; questions that were refused should be placed on the record with stated relevance for appeal purposes.

Can a Title IX finding be expunged from my transcript?

The internal institutional record can sometimes be modified through the appeals process or, post-litigation, through a settlement or court-ordered expungement. The Texas statutory transcript notation under Tex. Educ. Code §51.295 is harder to remove and generally requires either a successful internal appeal that vacates the underlying finding, or a federal court order. Doe v. Purdue recognized that the marred record is a “continuing harm” for which federal injunctive relief is available even after the suspension has been served.

If criminal charges are filed parallel to Title IX, which case should I focus on first?

Criminal-first, almost always. The criminal proceeding has the higher stakes (incarceration and registration consequences in addition to civil consequences), the higher evidentiary protections, and the Fifth Amendment privilege the Title IX proceeding lacks. The Title IX proceeding must, at minimum, be coordinated with criminal counsel so that the respondent does not waive criminal protections by participating in a parallel administrative process where evidence is more freely admissible.

Does Title IX cover off-campus conduct?

Under the 2020 rule, generally no — the institution’s Title IX jurisdiction extends only to conduct “in the recipient’s education program or activity” and within the United States, with limited exceptions for off-campus sites the institution controls (such as fraternity houses and study-abroad programs at institution-run facilities). Under the 2024 rule (where applicable), jurisdiction extends to off-campus and online conduct that creates a hostile environment in the program. The jurisdictional question should be the first issue raised in writing during the evidence inspection period.

Can the university punish me before the hearing?

Yes, but only through “supportive measures” and “emergency removals” under defined standards. Supportive measures (no-contact directives, course schedule changes, housing changes) are non-disciplinary by definition. Emergency removal under 34 CFR §106.44(c) requires an “individualized safety and risk analysis” concluding that the respondent poses an “immediate threat to the physical health or safety of any student or other individual.” The respondent has the right to challenge the emergency removal immediately. Many pre-hearing “interim suspensions” that institutions impose without the §106.44(c) analysis are subject to immediate procedural challenge.

What happens to my financial aid if I’m found responsible?

Suspension typically pauses federal student aid for the duration of the suspension; the student must reapply on readmission. Expulsion ordinarily terminates aid eligibility at that institution; transfer to another institution requires fresh aid eligibility. Veterans’ benefits, ROTC scholarships, and certain merit aid (Texas Grant, TEXAS Grant) have their own eligibility rules that may be triggered by the disciplinary finding independent of the aid suspension. The financial-aid analysis is a frequently-overlooked component of the sanctioning analysis at hearing; counsel should raise the financial-aid consequences as part of the proportionality argument.

Can the Title IX office require me to take a polygraph?

No. Polygraphs are not admissible in Texas civil or criminal proceedings, and no institution may compel a respondent to submit to one. If the institution requests a polygraph — or suggests that declining one will produce an adverse inference — decline politely in writing, on advice of counsel, and place the request on the record as a procedural-defect ground.

Recent Developments

Three developments materially affect Title IX defense at Texas universities through 2026:

Litigation status of the 2024 regulations. Multiple federal courts have preliminarily enjoined the 2024 rule. The injunctions apply to most Texas public institutions. As of this writing, the operative framework at most Texas institutions remains the 2020 rule. The Supreme Court has not yet granted review of any of the underlying cases. Counsel should confirm in writing with the institution’s Title IX office which regulatory version applies to a given matter.

Sixth Circuit cross-examination authority. The line of cases beginning with Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati and culminating in Doe v. Mich. State Univ., 989 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2021), continues to expand the constitutional minimum for cross-examination in credibility cases. The Fifth Circuit has not yet adopted the Sixth Circuit’s framework but several Texas federal district courts have cited it favorably in due-process challenges to Texas public-university procedures.

State-law transcript-notation challenges. Federal litigation challenging the Tex. Educ. Code §51.295 transcript-notation requirement on procedural-due-process and First Amendment grounds is pending in the Western District of Texas. The case law is developing rapidly; counsel should consult current authority before relying on the notation provision as a settled matter.

Next Steps

If you have received a Title IX Notice of Allegations, an interim suspension notice, or any other formal communication from your university's Title IX office, the most important step is to consult with experienced counsel within the first few days.

L&L Law Group, PLLC offers free initial consultations on Title IX and campus disciplinary matters affecting Texas university students.

• Call (972) 370-5060 — available 24/7
• Email info@landllawgroup.com
• Visit our contact page for an appointment request