I. Welcome

1. Introductions
   
   • Lakeisha - Jugde
   • Amanda - Arguing for the Petitioner
   • Desmond - Arguing for the Respondents
     
2. Presentation guidelines/directions
3. Powerpoint/direct to website
   

II. Facts

1. Overview of facts
   

III. Issues

1. Whether the implied right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments supports a claim of monetary damages.
2. Whether Congress intended to limit relief in enforcement of Title IX.
   

IV. First Issue - Whether the implied right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments supports a claim of monetary damages.

1. Respondent’s argument
1. Drayden v. Needville ISD
1. Title VI does not support a claim for monetary damages
2. Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm’n of New York City
1. Provided no support for or against awarding damages for intentional discrimination
2. Petitioner’s argument
1. Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm’n of New York City
1. A clear majority expressed the view that damages were available under Title VI in an action seeking remedies for an intentional violation, and not Justice challenged the traditional presumption in favor of a federal court’s power to award appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action.
2. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone
1. The court observed that “the majority in Guardians had “agreed that retroactive relief is available to private plaintiffs for all discrimination...that is actionable under Title IX.”
2. The general rule, therefore, is that absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.
3. Petitioner’s argument
1. Davis v. Passman - Presume the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise
2. Bell v. Hood - Where legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done
4. Respondents’ argument
1. Traditional presumption of relief has disappeared in decades since Bell v. Hood and was abandoned by the Court in Davis v. Passman.
2. Bell v. Hood rule was limited to actions claiming constitutional violations.
5. Audience survey
1. Who is right on this issue and why?
6. Analysis
1. Title IX does support a claim of monetary damages.
2. Cannon v. Chicago
1. Per this rule of law, Title IX is enforceable through implied right of action
2. Implied right of action - A court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law.
3. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak - The Court specifically rejected an argument that a court’s remedial power to redress violations of the Securities exchange Act of 1934 was limited to a declaratory judgment.
4. The Court adhered to the general rule that all appropriate relief available in an action brought to vindicate a federal right when Congress has given no indication of its purpose with respect to remedies.

V. Second issue - Whether Congress intended to limit relief in enforcement of Title IX.

1. Argument 1
1. Respondent  - An award of damages violates separation of powers principles because it unduly expands the federal courts’ power into a sphere properly reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches
2. - Respondent confuses a cause of action and a remedy. Unlike the finding of a cause of action, which authorizes a court to hear a case or controversy, the discretion to award appropriate relief involves no such increase in judicial power.
2. Argument 2
1. Respondent  - The normal presumption in favor of all appropriate remedies should not apply because Title IX was enacted pursuant to Congress’ Spending Clause power.
2. Petitioner (Amanda) - Remedies were limited under Spending Clause statutes when the alleged violation was unintentional. This limitation should not also apply to intentional violations.
3. Argument 3
1. Respondent - Remedies should be limited to backpay and prospective relief.
2. Petitioner - Backpay does nothing for the petitioner because she was a student at the time of the incident. Prospective relief neither affords remedy because the teacher accused of the harassment no longer works that the school.
4. Audience Survey
   
1. Who is right on this issue and why?
5. Analysis
1. Federal courts cannot reach out to award remedies when the Constitution or laws of the U.S. do not support a cause of action.
2. The point of not permitting monetary damages for an unintentional violation is that the receiving entity of federal funds lacks notice that it will be liable for a monetary award.
3. The Court agrees that backpay does nothing. Further, respondents’ acknowledgment that administrative action will help other similarly situated students in effect acknowledges that its approach would leave the petitioner without remedy.

VI. Holding

In sum, we conclude that a damages remedy is available for an action brought to enforce Title IX. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VII. Application as Future School Leaders

VIII. Thank you