In Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, 90 F.4th 34 (2d Cir. 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a rare en banc ruling, unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging discriminatory treatment in violation of Title IX had sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact for standing purposes. The court’s unanimous finding that the denial of equal opportunity in violation of an antidiscrimination statute is a cognizable injury in fact is significant and may encourage more discriminatory treatment claims in the future.

But the court diverged on a number of other standing issues, including redressability and availability of monetary damages, with the court issuing a total of eight opinions. The splintered nature of the court’s opinions illustrates the underlying tension between ensuring access to courts and enforcing appropriate limitations on judicial power.

Background