Within the last year, several landmark interpretations of Title IX have been issued by different branches of the federal government, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In March, the Court issued an opinion that a high-school girls' basketball coach who was fired after complaining that his team was not receiving equal treatment can sue his employer for retaliation because he is protected by Title IX.

That decision was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who last month announced her retirement from the high court. A moderate conservative, O'Connor was considered a swing justice on a court that has long held a tenuous ideological balance.

Less than a month after O'Connor's announcement, President Bush named conservative U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts as his nominee to replace her on the high court. Confirmation hearings are expected to begin in September. Because Roberts is viewed by many to be a moderate conservative, the confirmation process is not expected to be as rigorous as others in the past, though recent White House refusals to turn over documents have some Democrats questioning the nomination.

If confirmed, Roberts could dramatically change the Court's view on Title IX, particularly as it relates to athletics. Some advocates on both sides of the Title IX debate believe speculation about how Roberts would rule on Title IX cases is premature because no one knows his true feelings on the issue. However, some advocates and legal experts alike point to past cases in which Roberts argued or issued briefs for the Department of Justice that indicate he is likely to have a much more restrictive view of the application of Title IX than O'Connor did.

'Strict interpreter of statute'

Stefanie Lindquist, an associate professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, said she believes Roberts would be a "strict interpreter of statute."

"By the way he's interpreted statutes in the past, my sense is he's going to read it in the narrowest possible terms of the impact on educational institutions," Lindquist said. As evidence, she pointed to an argument Roberts had presented in an earlier case that Title IX should apply only to those divisions within institutions that directly receive federal funding.

"That is a very restrictive reading of the statute. If that's any indication of where he's going to go, he's going to read the statute as narrowly as possible and then allow Congress (to legislate its desires)," she said. "I think that's his modus operandi, to exercise judicial restraint as much as possible. I think he's deferential to Congress once Congress speaks, but I think he's not going to find any wiggle room in the statute that is going to necessarily favor the plaintiffs (in Title IX violation cases)."

Lindquist said that overall, O'Connor had a similar philosophy, but often was more willing to examine Congressional intent when issuing opinions. Her recent opinion in the high-school coach case, for example, showed a more expansive interpretation of Title IX that furthered what she viewed as the underlying purpose of the law.

"I'm not sure Roberts would go that far," Lindquist said. "We're talking about someone who is just a little bit more --at least to all indications at this point -- constrained in terms of statutory interpretations."

Those who advocate for a more narrow reading of Title IX hope Roberts' nomination could reign in the broad readings of the statute the Court has interpreted in the past.

Mike Moyer, executive director of the National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA), said he's not sure whether Roberts' past cases indicate his personal views on Title IX or just those of the entities or persons he was representing.

"We can only hope that he would rule on Title IX as it's written and not how it's been interpreted," he said. "I think only he knows his personal beliefs. As an attorney, you have an obligation to represent a client. So you don't really know whether he represented his clients' interests or whether he's representing his own personal interests."

Moyer, who has repeatedly indicated that his group supports Title IX as written, just not the quota system that interpretations of the law often perpetuate, said the NWCA and other anti-quota advocates would continue to argue for Title IX reform.

"It's too early to tell (Roberts' position on Title IX)," he said. "But it wouldn't matter who the nominee was -- our goal is to make sure they interpret Title IX as it was written."

Past rulings an indicator

Moyer and Eric Pearson, executive director of the College Sports Council, both said it would be inappropriate to paint Roberts as anti-gender equity. The College Sports Council is a coalition of national sports organizations that has challenged the application of Title IX.

Pearson likened attempts to criticize Roberts on Title IX issues to "widely criticized and discredited smear ads" paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, an anti-abortion group lobbying for the defeat of Roberts' nomination.

"They tried to link him to the bombing of abortion clinics, which was outrageous and untrue, and to say that he is anti-Title IX is simply unfounded."

Pearson predicted Roberts will have little voice on Title IX if he is confirmed to the high court. He said he believes any changes to the way the law is interpreted will come through the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

However, officials at the National Women's Law Center disagree. Jocelyn Samuels, vice-president for education and employment, said Roberts has consistently "opted for an extremely narrow construction of Title IX."

"I think that (his nomination) bodes ill for future civil-rights decisions if he continues to adhere to the kinds of rulings that he previously supported in his role as a private sector attorney or as a Department of Justice lawyer," she said.

Samuels mentioned a variety of cases Roberts had participated in, including the Grove City v. Bell Supreme Court decision in 1984 stating that only programs or activities that receive direct federal financial assistance are affected by Title IX. Roberts was involved in the government brief urging the Court to reach that decision, which later was overturned by Congress with the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988.

Samuels also noted Roberts' defense of the NCAA against a law student who claimed discrimination under Title IX because the Association refused to allow her to participate in intercollegiate athletics after she had received an undergraduate degree. He also intervened on behalf of the government in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, a case that resulted in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that victims of discrimination of Title IX are entitled to receive damages. The government argued that Title IX did not permit victims of discrimination to sue.

"His perspective is that athletics are beyond the pale of Title IX because they do not get direct forms of federal assistance, which obviously would eviscerate huge areas of the application of Title IX and lead to just ludicrous results," Samuels said.

Samuels said that there are no major Title IX cases the group currently is monitoring that could eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. However, she said the group has "significant concerns" that the outcome of the most recent Title IX case before the Supreme Court of the high-school basketball coach would be quite different with Roberts among the decision-makers.

"Given Roberts' prior views about the narrowness of Title IX and his unwillingness to imply any remedies or course of action, I think it's obviously unclear what position he would have taken, but we have significant concerns that his prior positions would have led him to reject a cause of action for retaliation," Samuels said. "It would have been devastating to Title IX."