Expanded Title IX Liability: Arana v. Board of Regents — Seventh Circuit Ruling Overview

distinctconsulting2
5 days ago
2 min read

What Happened in Arana?

Background: In 2018 at the University of Wisconsin, student-athlete Quintez Cephus was found responsible for sexual assault and harassment. He was expelled following the university complaint. Later, after a criminal trial in which he was acquitted, the university president vacated the sexual assault finding (but not harassment), reinstating him without consulting the original complainant, Isabelle Arana. External pressures, including donors and athletics figures played a notable role.
Aftermath for Arana: Arana avoided social spaces, skipped classes, downgraded her schedules, delayed graduation, and deferred law school, all despite not experiencing a decline in academic performance.
Legal Action: Arana filed a Title IX lawsuit alleging that the university’s decision to readmit Cephus amounted to deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment for the university.
Appeal and Reversal: On July 11, 2025, the Seventh Circuit reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed, concluding that a jury could reasonably find Title IX liability under these circumstances.

Key Legal Conclusions from the Ruling

Single Egregious Incident May Be “Pervasive”
Even one severe act of harassment, if sufficiently traumatic, can meet the Title IX threshold of “pervasive” conduct.
Deprivation of Educational Access Doesn’t Require Academic Struggles Title IX liability can arise if a student’s ability to participate in campus life meaningfully is compromised even if grades remain strong.
Institutional Response Must Be Enduring, Not Undermined by Later Action
A remedial response can be undone, legally if later actions (e.g. reinstatement) effectively nullify it. That constitutes deliberate indifference.

Why This Ruling Matters

Broader Liability Potential: Institutions may now be held accountable even if they had no prior notice of misconduct, provided it is serious enough.
Campus Climate Must Be Sustained: Remedies must endure. If later decisions counteract earlier corrective measures, an institution risks liability.
Expanded Definition of Harm: Emotional or psychological harm affecting campus life is recognized as educational deprivation even in the absence of academic decline.

Practical Implications for Institutions

Robust Title IX Policies & Practitioners: Institutions should assess whether any serious reported incidents, regardless of past notice, warrant immediate, sustained action.
Decision-Making Transparency & Consistency: Reversals of earlier disciplinary outcomes may be viewed as undermining Title IX compliance if they jeopardize campus safety or stability for impacted individuals.
Focus on Student Experience Beyond Grades: Assessment of educational deprivation should include emotional well-being and access to full campus participation, not just transcripts.

Case Snapshot

Topic	Details
Case Name	Arana v. Board of Regents
Court & Date	Seventh Circuit, July 11, 2025
Core Issue	Reinstatement of athlete after expulsion
Ruling Outcome	Reversed summary judgment; Title IX case moves forward
Legal Takeaway	Single egregious incident + undermined response = Title IX risk

Final Thoughts

Arana signals a new paradigm in Title IX jurisprudence. It emphasizes that institutions must take care not only in initial responses to sexual misconduct, but also in any later decisions that may nullify those actions. Survivors’ experiences, including fear, avoidance, and emotional trauma,

are now plainly within the scope of protected access to education. Institutions must prioritize both procedural integrity and ongoing support to meet Title IX obligations.