The 2024 Title IX Regulation Changes: What Respondents Should Know

What the 2024 Rule Actually Changed

Section summaryThe 2024 amendments to 34 C.F.R. Part 106 broadened the definition of sex-based harassment, restructured the grievance process, and revised both the evidentiary standard options and the live-hearing requirement. For respondents, the practical impact varies by institution.

The headline shifts respondents should know:

• Expanded harassment definition under Subpart D reaches a wider range of conduct.
• The single-investigator model is permitted in some postures (the 2020 rule had effectively prohibited it).
• Evidence-review windows and notice requirements were adjusted.
• Live-hearing procedure was loosened in part — but the structural rights to notice, advisor, and review remain.
• Coverage of pregnancy, parental status, and sexual-orientation-based conduct was clarified.

None of these changes eliminated the core respondent rights baked into Part 106. They reorganized how those rights play out in practice — and many schools chose to retain stronger 2020-era protections voluntarily. See our burden-of-proof breakdown for the underlying framework.

Preponderance vs Clear-and-Convincing

Section summarySchools may choose either standard but must apply it uniformly. Preponderance ("more likely than not") is easier to meet; clear-and-convincing ("highly probable") gives respondents more breathing room. Most Texas universities use preponderance.

The 2024 rule preserved the 2020 framework's flexibility: a school may use either preponderance or clear-and-convincing evidence, but only if it applies the same standard to all formal complaints — including those against employees and faculty. That uniformity rule matters: a school cannot use preponderance for students and clear-and-convincing for faculty.

The practical difference:

• Preponderance: the decision-maker must find it more likely than not that the conduct occurred — roughly a 51% threshold.
• Clear and convincing: the decision-maker must find it highly probable — substantially higher than 51%, though courts have declined to attach a number.

Most Texas public universities use preponderance. If your school uses clear-and-convincing, that is a meaningful advantage and your defense should be built around it.

Live Hearing Changes

Section summaryThe 2020 rule made the live hearing mandatory for higher-education cases and required advisor cross-examination. The 2024 rule loosened some of these requirements but most Texas universities kept live-hearing rights in policy.

The Sixth Circuit's reasoning in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) — that credibility determinations in serious cases require cross-examination — continues to inform how federal courts review Title IX hearings. That is a defensive lever respondents should not give up.

Read our deep dive on live hearing strategy for the procedural specifics. The short version: even if your school's 2024-rule policy permits a softer hearing format, you can request a full live hearing with cross-examination, and most schools will grant it.

How Texas Schools Adopted the Rule

Section summaryFederal injunctions paused enforcement of parts of the 2024 rule in some states, meaning Texas institutions adopted at different speeds. Some moved to the 2024 framework, others stayed on the 2020 framework, and some adopted hybrid policies.

The first thing your Title IX advisor needs to do is pull your school's published policy as it existed on the date of the alleged conduct. Title IX policies are generally not applied retroactively — the policy in force when the conduct allegedly occurred controls.

Common adoption postures across Texas universities:

• Full 2024-rule adoption with updated definitions and procedure.
• 2020-rule retention pending litigation outcomes.
• Hybrid policies that adopt expanded definitions but retain stronger 2020 procedural rights.

If you are an educator-respondent, certification consequences turn on which version of the policy controls. Our educator certification impact calculator walks through the SBEC reporting framework.

Due-Process Implications for Respondents

Section summaryAt public Texas universities, the 14th Amendment supplies due-process rights that exist independent of Title IX. Federal due-process doctrine often gives respondents stronger protections than the Title IX rule alone.

Public institutions in Texas are state actors, which means the federal Due Process Clause applies on top of Title IX. Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) and the line of cases following it have held that serious sanctions in credibility-driven cases require meaningful cross-examination.

For practical defense planning:

• Even when the 2024 rule allows a softer process, due-process doctrine may require more.
• Document every procedural decision the school makes — these become appeal grounds and litigation grounds.
• Coordinate criminal defense and Title IX defense from day one (see our pillar guide).

If a criminal investigation is parallel to the Title IX case, the Texas statute of limitations checker can help map criminal-exposure timelines. Before any school hearing, walk through the Title IX hearing prep tool.

Frequently Asked Questions

Next Steps

If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.

• Call (972) 370-5060
• Email info@landllawgroup.com