Whether and to what extent a Title IX plaintiff must prove that a school's deliberate indifference to known peer harassment caused them to undergo further harassment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Since its landmark decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), the Court has not provided school districts with any guidance on the contours of their potential Title IX liability for student-on-student harassment. And although the Davis Court intentionally imposed a demanding liability standard, the federal courts of appeals are divided on what satisfies a plaintiff's burden. Some hold that a school’s deliberate indifference to known peer harassment must cause the plaintiff to undergo further harassment. Others merely consider whether the school’s indifference made the plaintiff “more vulnerable” to speculative (or even non-existent) future harassment. The decision below—in which the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of a school district on claims stemming from injuries suffered by a high school student during a consensual sexual encounter with her long-term this division among the circuits, and materially conflicts with Davis. The questions presented are: 1. Whether and to what extent a Title IX plaintiff must prove that a school’s deliberate indifference to known peer harassment caused them to undergo further harassment. 2. Whether a plaintiff's mere vulnerability to further peer harassment confers Article III standing. 3. Whether, under Davis, courts may consider the “totality of the circumstances,” as opposed to only the “known circumstances,” when evaluating deliberate indifference. 4, Whether identifying the lack of evidence on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim preserves a no-evidence ground for summary judgment.