VotePredictor

← The Supreme Court

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

No. 25-183 · October Term 2026 · Judicial Power · argument November 30, 2026

questions presented (PDF) · docket · Oyez

67%chance Crowther (petitioner) wins · the base rate before argument

Expected vote 5–4 for Crowther. Chance of a unanimous ruling 43%.

Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.

The case

Thomas Crowther and MaChelle Joseph are suing the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, alleging sex discrimination in their employment under Title IX. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Title IX does not provide an implied private right of action for employees to sue for sex discrimination. The Supreme Court must now decide whether employees of federally funded educational institutions have a private right of action under Title IX to sue for sex discrimination in employment.

  • Whether Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination extends to employment discrimination claims brought by employees.
  • Whether the Court's prior rulings in Cannon v. University of Chicago and Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education establish or preclude an implied private right of action for employees under Title IX.
  • The impact of this decision on the ability of employees in federally funded educational institutions to seek redress for alleged sex discrimination.
  • The proper interpretation of congressional intent regarding private enforcement mechanisms under Title IX.

AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.

Parties
Petitioner: Thomas Crowther, et al., Petitioners
Respondent: Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.
Below
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · November 7, 2024
121 F.4th 855 · ruling coded conservative · cert. granted 5/18/2026
Question presented, as filed

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits federally funded educational institutions from discriminating "on the basis of sex." In Cannon v. University of Chicago , 441 U.S. 677 (1979), this Court held that Title IX is privately enforceable by "victims of discrimination" through an implied right of action. And in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education , 544 U.S. 167 (2005), this Court held that employees of federally funded educational institutions may invoke Title IX's implied private right of action to bring claims for retaliation. Following Jackson , and until the decision below, "every ... circuit[] that has considered whether a teacher may sue under Title IX" for sex discrimination in their employment "has found they may." Pet App. 124a (Rosenbaum, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc ). Splitting with eight courts of appeals, the Eleventh Circuit held in the decision below that Title IX "do[es] not embrace a private right of action for employees." Pet. App. 21a. In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit joined pre- Jackson decisions from the Fifth and Seventh Circuits in an 8-3 split. The question presented is: Whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment.

Facts of the case (Oyez)

MaChelle Joseph served as head women's basketball coach at Georgia Tech from 2003 until her termination in March 2019. Throughout her tenure, she repeatedly complained that the university provided her program with inferior resources compared to the men's basketball team—including smaller facilities, less marketing support, lower staff salaries, and reduced travel budgets. Shortly after she filed a formal internal complaint alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in early 2019, Georgia Tech hired an outside investigator to examine complaints about her coaching conduct, placed her on administrative leave, and fired her weeks later based on the investigator's report finding she had created a harmful environment for players. Thomas Crowther taught art at Augusta University from 2006 until 2021. In Spring 2020, several students complained he had sexually harassed them, triggering a Title IX investigation. Crowther argued the investigation was biased against him as a male respondent—he was denied the identities of his accusers, most of his witnesses went uninterviewed, and he received his first negative performance review in nearly fifteen years while the investigation was still pending. After investigators found he had violated the university's sexual harassment policy, Augusta suspended him for a semester, declined to renew his contract while his appeal remained pending, and effectively terminated him. Both Joseph and Crowther sued under Title IX as employees of federally funded educational institutions, asserting that the statute's ban on sex discrimination entitled them to bring suit directly in federal court. In separate proceedings before the district court in the Northern District of Georgia, the court dismissed Joseph's Title IX employment-discrimination claims as precluded by Title VII while allowing other claims to proceed, and later granted summary judgment for the defendants on those remaining claims; in Crowther's case, the court denied the motion to dismiss his Title IX claims and certified that order for interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit consolidated both appeals and, on November 7, 2024, held that Title IX does not provide an implied private right of action for employees alleging sex discrimination in employment—affirming the dismissal of Joseph's Title IX claims and reversing the denial of dismissal of Crowther's claims; the Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc on April 8, 2025.

The nine

Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.

JusticePredictedOverallThis issueLower court conservativeAt argument
John G. Roberts
Republican appointee · since OT2005

Chief Justice Roberts generally favors a strict interpretation of statutes and has expressed skepticism about implied rights of action, though he joined the majority in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, which recognized an implied right for retaliation claims.

57% Crowther68%
for the petitioner · 1,512 votes
69%
Judicial Power · 197 votes
61%
lower court conservative · 734 votes
not yet argued
Clarence Thomas
Republican appointee · since OT1991

Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, often disfavoring implied rights of action unless explicitly provided by statute. He dissented in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, arguing against an implied right of action for retaliation.

57% Crowther59%
for the petitioner · 2,801 votes
57%
Judicial Power · 388 votes
43%
lower court conservative · 1,365 votes
not yet argued
Samuel A. Alito
Republican appointee · since OT2005

Justice Alito typically aligns with a conservative judicial philosophy, often emphasizing statutory text and limiting implied rights of action. He joined Justice Thomas's dissent in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education.

57% Crowther62%
for the petitioner · 1,469 votes
65%
Judicial Power · 190 votes
48%
lower court conservative · 722 votes
not yet argued
Sonia Sotomayor
Democratic appointee · since OT2009

Justice Sotomayor generally supports broad interpretations of civil rights statutes and access to justice, which could lead her to favor an implied right of action for employees under Title IX.

57% Crowther61%
for the petitioner · 1,192 votes
58%
Judicial Power · 149 votes
76%
lower court conservative · 594 votes
not yet argued
Elena Kagan
Democratic appointee · since OT2010

Justice Kagan often considers the practical implications of legal interpretations and has shown a willingness to uphold established precedents, which could influence her view on the scope of Title IX's private right of action.

63% Crowther63%
for the petitioner · 1,072 votes
61%
Judicial Power · 137 votes
75%
lower court conservative · 543 votes
not yet argued
Neil M. Gorsuch
Republican appointee · since OT2016

Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who emphasizes the plain meaning of statutory language, but he has also shown a willingness to protect individual rights, which could lead to a nuanced approach in this case.

63% Crowther65%
for the petitioner · 592 votes
69%
Judicial Power · 83 votes
59%
lower court conservative · 286 votes
not yet argued
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Republican appointee · since OT2018

Justice Kavanaugh generally adheres to a textualist approach and respects precedent, which could lead him to consider the established understanding of Title IX's private right of action in other circuits.

57% Crowther69%
for the petitioner · 498 votes
73%
Judicial Power · 62 votes
62%
lower court conservative · 244 votes
not yet argued
Amy Coney Barrett
Republican appointee · since OT2020

Justice Barrett is a textualist who prioritizes the plain meaning of statutory language and has expressed skepticism about judicial creation of rights not explicitly granted by Congress.

57% Crowther66%
for the petitioner · 360 votes
71%
Judicial Power · 49 votes
60%
lower court conservative · 178 votes
not yet argued
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Democratic appointee · since OT2022

Justice Jackson generally supports broad interpretations of civil rights laws and has a record of upholding protections against discrimination, which could lead her to favor an implied right of action for employees under Title IX.

63% Crowther59%
for the petitioner · 244 votes
60%
Judicial Power · 37 votes
80%
lower court conservative · 127 votes
not yet argued

Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.

Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.