In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, the Supreme Court held that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not provide a private right of action for damages against educational institutions based on their response to sexual harassment or assault by other students. The case arose from an incident in which a student at Houston Community College was sexually assaulted by another student and sought relief under Title IX against both her assailant and the college itself. The court found that while Congress intended Title IX to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of sex, it did not intend for it to create a cause of action allowing victims to sue schools directly for monetary damages due to their failure to prevent such incidents. As such, they concluded that there is no private right of action available under this statute and dismissed the plaintiff's claims accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case Houston Community College System v. Wilson, Justice Alito argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. He argued that Title IX does not provide a private right of action for individuals to sue educational institutions for discrimination. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the language of Title IX, which does not explicitly provide for a private right of action. He also argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the legislative history of Title IX, which does not provide any evidence that Congress intended to create a private right of action. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Supreme Court's precedent, which has consistently held that Title IX does not provide a private right of action. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the policy considerations underlying Title IX, which do not support the creation of a private right of action. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the practical implications of its decision, which would create a flood of litigation and impose a significant burden on educational institutions. He concluded that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of Title IX and should be reversed.