This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower‑court decision, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1997, leaving the lower‑court ruling in place.
Background and question before the Court
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower‑court ruling in favor of the Board, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1997, leaving that decision in effect.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Roderick Jackson)
According to Mr. THOMAS (Petitioner), according to Mr. THOMAS (Petitioner), according to Mr. THOMAS (Petitioner), the petitioner argues that the statutory language of Title IX does not clearly provide a private cause of action for retaliation.
Respondent (Birmingham Board of Education)
According to Mr. Dellinger, the respondent contends that even if a cause of action exists, Coach Jackson cannot bring it because he is not the victim of the underlying discrimination.
According to Mr. Dellinger, both parties have been discriminated against on the basis of sex because they are trying to rectify sex discrimination.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor questioned why Congress would expressly cover retaliation in some statutes but not in others.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia inquired about the date of the Sullivan case.
Justice Ginsburg asked what implication there would be for federal employment if the circuit’s view were adopted.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter raised the point that there is no practical administrative remedy in the real world.
Justice Breyer asked whether Title IX is a civil‑rights statute that provides a private cause of action.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that agencies interpreting the statute thought a private cause of action existed.
- [1] e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdf, p. 19
- [2] e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdf, p. 20
- [3] e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdf, p. 24
- [4] e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdf, p. 28
- [5] e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdf, p. 33
- [6] e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdf, p. 36
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Kevin C. Newsom (Amicus Curiae for Alabama), kevin C. Newsom (Amicus Curiae for Alabama) argues that clarifying the scope of the administrative remedy under Title IX is necessary because the OCR may use any remedy it deems necessary.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e134fdd0acdfe2eafb62-r1-b7ab7bd8c04d52d9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.