They had no basis for what they did to women.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that Title IX permits federally funded schools to separate athletic competition by biological sex — a decision that, while awarding no damages itself, dismantles the primary legal shield institutions have used against lawsuits brought by female athletes. For years, the NCAA and universities argued they were compelled by federal law to include transgender women in women's sports; the Court has now rejected that reasoning entirely. What remains is the harder, slower question of whether justice for lost titles, scholarships, and opportunities can be translated into financial accountability.
- Female athletes who lost titles, scholarships, roster spots, and world records now stand on significantly stronger legal ground after the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the NCAA's core defense.
- The ruling exposes a fault line: institutions that claimed federal law forced their hand can no longer hide behind that argument, leaving their policies without legal justification.
- Two high-profile lawsuits — one led by Riley Gaines over a 2022 swimming championship, another by Brooke Slusser over a college volleyball team — are now positioned to move toward damages claims that courts had previously stalled.
- A federal judge who had delayed ruling on damages against California State University was waiting on exactly this decision, meaning the legal logjam may now begin to break.
- Despite the breakthrough, athletes and advocates warn that winning the argument is not the same as winning accountability — courts must still decide whether institutions can be held financially liable for policies they once called mandatory.
When the Supreme Court issued its ruling on transgender athletes in women's sports, it awarded no money and settled no individual case. But for female athletes who have spent years in court seeking damages from the NCAA and universities, the decision may have just collapsed the wall their opponents were standing behind.
Riley Gaines and Brooke Slusser are leading two separate lawsuits — Gaines against the NCAA over the 2022 Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships, and Slusser against San Jose State University and the Mountain West Conference over a transgender player on the women's volleyball team. Both cases seek compensatory and punitive damages for female athletes who say they were denied fair competition, privacy, and equal opportunity.
For years, the NCAA and universities defended their policies with a single argument: Title IX required them to allow transgender women to compete on women's teams. All nine justices have now rejected that claim. The Court ruled that Title IX and its regulations actually permit schools to separate athletic teams by biological sex, and that Title VII employment law — which had been used to justify inclusive athletic policies — does not govern how Title IX applies to sports.
Bill Bock, the attorney leading both cases, called the ruling a decisive blow, saying institutions "had no basis for what they did to women." In the Slusser case, a federal judge had already paused damages rulings pending the Supreme Court's decision — a delay that now looks pivotal, since the employment-law reasoning the judge had relied on is no longer available.
Former swimmer Marshi Smith, co-founder of ICONS, called it "a huge battle won" while cautioning that financial accountability remains unresolved. Plaintiff Kaitlynn Wheeler described waking up with "an immense amount of hope," and Kaylie Ray, involved in the Mountain West case, said simply: "Women do matter. Their spaces do matter."
California State University responded by saying it had complied with the law as it existed and would follow the new standard going forward — a framing that may itself become contested ground. The ruling removes a defense. Whether it delivers justice is a question the courts have yet to answer.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision about transgender athletes in women's sports that will reshape the legal landscape for female athletes pursuing damages against the NCAA and universities. The ruling itself awarded no money to anyone. But for women suing over lost opportunities, scholarships, and titles, it may have just removed the primary wall their opponents have been hiding behind.
Riley Gaines and Brooke Slusser are leading two separate lawsuits. Gaines is suing the NCAA over the 2022 Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships, where former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas competed in women's events. Slusser is suing San Jose State University and the Mountain West Conference over a transgender player on the university's women's volleyball team. Both cases seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of female athletes who say they were denied equal opportunities, privacy, safety, or fair competition.
For years, the NCAA and universities have relied on a straightforward defense: Title IX required them to allow transgender female athletes to compete on women's teams. The Supreme Court has now dismantled that argument entirely. All nine justices agreed that Title IX and its regulations actually permit federally funded schools to separate athletic teams based on biological sex and to exclude transgender females from women's sports. The justices also made clear that Title VII employment law—which had been used to justify inclusive policies—does not control how Title IX applies to athletics. Employment law and sports are, the Court said, vastly different contexts.
Bill Bock, the attorney leading both cases for the Independent Council on Women's Sports, called the ruling "huge" because it "absolutely shredded" the reasoning lower courts and athletic bodies had used to defend their policies. "The NCAA's first defense is, 'Well, Title IX doesn't apply to us.' The second defense is, 'Well, we had to do it because Title IX required us to.' They're wrong on both counts," Bock told Fox News Digital. The institutions his clients are suing now, he argued, "had no basis for what they did to women."
The practical effect is significant. In the Slusser case, a federal judge had previously delayed ruling on damages claims against California State University, which oversees San Jose State, pending the Supreme Court's decision. That delay now looks consequential. The judge had relied partly on employment law precedent to justify the earlier policies; that reasoning is no longer available. The Gaines case still faces a threshold question—whether the NCAA is even covered by Title IX because of alleged federal funding ties—but the Court's reasoning strengthens the plaintiffs' position on that front as well.
Former University of Arizona swimmer Marshi Smith, co-founder of ICONS, called the ruling a "huge battle won," but cautioned that the fight is not over. The real question now is whether courts will hold institutions financially accountable for policies they claimed were legally mandated. Female athletes report losing national championships, world records, roster spots, and scholarships. Smith pointed out that accountability remains elusive. "We're lacking accountability still," she said.
Kaitlynn Wheeler, a former University of Kentucky swimmer and plaintiff in the Gaines case, described the ruling as "a super validating moment" after years of asking for fairness. "I think a lot of women, including myself, woke up today feeling an immense amount of hope," she said. Kaylie Ray, involved in the Mountain West case, echoed that sentiment. "Women do matter," Ray said. "Their spaces do matter. Equality does matter. And their opportunities deserve to be protected."
The California State University system responded by saying the ruling "serves to clarify federal law going forward" and that CSU "will continue to follow all applicable federal and state laws." The statement noted that San Jose State "complied fully with the law in effect in 2024 and prior," and that the ruling "establishes the legal standard going forward and does not change the law that applied previously."
For female athletes seeking damages, the Supreme Court decision does not guarantee victory. But it does eliminate one of the central defenses institutions have relied on for years: that they had no choice. The next stage will determine whether that matters in court.
Citações Notáveis
The NCAA's first defense is that Title IX doesn't apply to them. The second is that they had to do it because Title IX required them to. They're wrong on both counts.— Bill Bock, attorney for the Independent Council on Women's Sports
Women do matter. Their spaces do matter. Equality does matter. And their opportunities deserve to be protected.— Kaylie Ray, plaintiff in the Mountain West case
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So the Supreme Court didn't actually award any money to these athletes, but somehow this helps their lawsuits?
Right. The Court didn't decide the damages cases themselves. What it did was rule on the underlying law—whether Title IX actually required schools to let transgender female athletes compete on women's teams. The answer was no, all nine justices agreed on that.
And that matters because?
Because for years, the NCAA and universities have been saying, "We had to do this. Title IX made us." Now the Supreme Court has said that's not true. Title IX actually allows schools to separate teams by biological sex. So the institutions can't hide behind legal obligation anymore.
But couldn't they just say, "We made a policy choice, not a legal requirement"?
They could try. But the ruling is pretty clear that Title IX didn't require what they did. That's a much weaker position in a damages case. The athletes can now argue the institutions made choices that harmed them when they didn't have to.
What happens next?
The lawsuits continue. There are still threshold questions—like whether the NCAA is even covered by Title IX. But the legal ground has shifted. Courts will have to decide if removing the "we had no choice" defense is enough to hold institutions financially accountable.
And if they do?
Then female athletes who lost scholarships, titles, records, and roster spots might actually recover damages. That's what they've been fighting for.