Substantive changes were made to the bill, primarily narrowing its scope to focus exclusively on single-sex social organizations and their members, removing broader protections for all social organizations. Key modifications include removing the 'solely' qualifier for adverse actions, expanding protected student activities, and adding a detailed biological definition of 'sex' to clarify the bill's intent regarding single-sex membership.
Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 27, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect single-sex fraternities and sororities from institutional penalties related to their membership policies, ensuring their continued operation and student participation on campuses receiving federal funding.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of higher education that receive federal funds from taking adverse actions against single-sex social organizations or their members based solely on their practice of limiting membership to individuals of one sex. It defines 'sex' biologically and outlines a comprehensive list of prohibited 'adverse actions' institutions cannot take.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill upholds fundamental rights to freedom of association, allowing students to choose to join or form single-sex organizations without fear of institutional reprisal. They contend it prevents discrimination against these groups and ensures a diversity of student life options, aligning with the historical and social purposes of such organizations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could limit the autonomy of institutions to set their own campus policies regarding student organizations, potentially hindering efforts to promote inclusivity or address perceived exclusionary practices. Concerns may also be raised about the bill's specific biological definition of 'sex' and its potential implications for transgender students or existing Title IX interpretations.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Purposes of the Act
This section explicitly states the bill's objectives: to protect students and single-sex social organizations from adverse actions by institutions of higher education based on their single-sex membership practices. It also aims to ensure fair treatment for these organizations compared to other social groups and to safeguard students' rights to freely associate with them.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that clearly articulating the purposes helps ensure the intent of the law is understood and applied, reinforcing the importance of freedom of association on college campuses.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against a bill's stated purposes, though critics of the overall bill might view the stated purposes as justifying policies they disagree with.
Tradeoffs
This section frames the bill's intent, highlighting the tension between institutional control over campus life and the rights of students to associate in single-sex groups.
Section 3, amending Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) by adding Section 124(a)
Upholding Freedom of Association Protections for Students
This provision ensures that any student at a federally funded institution of higher education can form, join, participate in, or lead a single-sex social organization of their sex, regardless of whether the organization is officially recognized by the institution. If selected for membership, students are explicitly allowed to join and participate, subject only to the organization's own membership standards.
Section 3, adding Section 124(b)
Nonretaliation Against Single-Sex Social Organizations and Members
This section prohibits federally funded institutions from taking any 'adverse action' against a single-sex social organization or its members based on their single-sex membership practice. It also forbids institutions from coercing students to waive these protections or imposing discriminatory recruitment restrictions on recognized single-sex organizations unless a mutual written agreement is in place.
Section 3, adding Section 124(c)
Rules of Construction and Limitations
This section clarifies what the Act does not do. It states that the Act does not require institutions to officially recognize single-sex organizations, nor does it prevent institutions from taking adverse actions against students for academic or nonacademic misconduct, or for promoting imminent lawless action. For private institutions, it allows adverse action if an organization's purpose is incompatible with the institution's religious mission. It also preserves an organization's right to regulate its own membership, protects faculty academic freedom, and clarifies that the Act does not create enforceable rights against an organization for denying membership.
The bill provides an exhaustive definition of 'adverse action,' listing eleven specific types of actions that institutions of higher education are prohibited from taking against single-sex social organizations or their members based on their single-sex nature. These include disciplinary actions, denial of participation in educational programs, withholding financial assistance, restricting housing access, denying certifications or recommendations, denying participation in other student groups, withdrawing official recognition, requiring disclosure of membership, interjecting institutional criteria into membership practices, and imposing additional requirements on advisors.
Section 3, adding Section 124(d)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure legal precision and avoid ambiguity in enforcement. The comprehensive nature of the list is crucial for clarity.
Case for: Supporters argue that a clear and comprehensive definition of 'adverse action' is necessary to prevent institutions from finding loopholes or using indirect means to penalize single-sex organizations. It provides certainty for both institutions and student groups.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could unduly restrict an institution's ability to manage its campus environment, potentially limiting its capacity to implement policies it deems necessary for student welfare or campus culture, even if not directly targeting single-sex status.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the scope of protections for single-sex organizations, impacting virtually all aspects of their interaction with federally funded institutions.
The bill defines 'sex' as the biological sex of an individual, either male or female. It further specifies 'female' as an individual who has, had, will have, or would have (but for anomaly or disruption) the reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization. Similarly, 'male' is defined as an individual with the reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization.
Section 3, adding Section 124(d)(3)
Why it matters:This is a deliberate legislative choice to provide a precise, narrow interpretation of 'sex' for the purposes of this Act, which has significant implications for how 'single-sex' organizations are understood and protected. It is not necessarily evasive but is a critical detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that this specific biological definition provides clarity and consistency, ensuring that the protections for 'single-sex' organizations align with a traditional understanding of male and female, particularly in the context of fraternal and sororal organizations.
Case against: Critics would argue that this narrow biological definition of 'sex' is exclusionary and could conflict with evolving understandings of gender identity, potentially undermining efforts to create inclusive environments for transgender and gender non-conforming students on college campuses. It could lead to legal challenges regarding its interaction with other anti-discrimination laws.
Estimated impact: This definition fundamentally shapes the scope of the bill's protections, determining which individuals and organizations qualify as 'single-sex' under the Act, with significant implications for gender identity policies on campuses.