Supreme Court Ruling on Transgender Athletes
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling regarding transgender athletes in women’s sports declined to provide damages for affected female athletes. However, it might signal a significant turning point for women involved in lawsuits against the NCAA, universities, and athletic conferences concerning prior policies on transgender athletes.
Riley Gaines’ lawsuit against the NCAA and Brooke Slusser’s case against San Jose State University and the Mountain West Conference seek damages for female athletes who claim they faced a loss of equal opportunities, privacy, safety, and fair competition due to policies that permitted male athletes who identify as transgender to participate in women’s sports.
Bill Bock, attorney for the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) and advocate for both cases, labeled the Supreme Court’s decision as monumental, arguing that it “completely destroyed” the rationale used by lower courts and athletic organizations. These entities had maintained that Title IX allowed schools to let biological males identifying as women compete in women’s sports.
All nine justices agreed that Title IX permits federally funded schools and states to create separate athletic teams based on biological sex, which means transgender women can be excluded from participating on girls’ and women’s teams.
Bock emphasized that the consensus among all justices undermines the rationale applied by the NCAA, the Mountain West, and the institutions he is currently litigating against, asserting they have no legal foundation for their past actions regarding these women.
In an interview, Bock recounted the NCAA’s two main defenses: first, that Title IX does not apply to them, and secondly, that their actions were required by Title IX. “They are wrong on both counts,” he asserted.
Gaines’ lawsuit involves current and former female athletes challenging the 2022 NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships, where former UPenn swimmer Leah Thomas participated in the women’s category. Plaintiffs aim for compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of themselves and other female competitors in those championships.
A federal judge has already narrowed this case, determining that the policy decisions from the NCAA were at fault and dismissing claims against Georgia defendants and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association. Currently, the focus is on whether the NCAA is subject to Title IX due to federal funding allegations, including a partnership related to concussion research with the Department of Defense.
In Slusser’s case, women’s volleyball players sued San Jose State and the Mountain West over their policies concerning transgender athletes on the San Jose State women’s volleyball team. Although a federal judge dismissed some of the claims, Bock plans to appeal. Title IX damages claims against the California State University Board of Regents remain pending, with the judge deferring the decision until after the Supreme Court rules on the matter.
This postponement now seems especially crucial. A previous federal judge pointed out that an earlier injunction referenced Bostock v. Clayton County, a 2020 Supreme Court case involving gay and transgender workers, suggesting its interpretation might be re-evaluated following the latest ruling.
Marci Smith, a former swimmer and co-founder of Icons, remarked that the Supreme Court’s decision was “a big battle won,” yet underscored that the struggle isn’t over. She pointed out that many women and girls claim they’ve lost titles, championships, scholarship opportunities, and more.
The California State University System responded to Bock’s comments, emphasizing their compliance with federal law and reiterating commitment to a safe, inclusive environment for all.
Caitlin Wheeler, a former University of Kentucky swimmer and teammate of Gaines, felt an immense sense of hope following the ruling, describing it as “a huge vindication moment” for female athletes fighting for fairness. Kaylee Ray, involved in the Mountain West case, expressed that the ruling felt “incredibly justified,” highlighting the importance of protecting women’s spaces and opportunities.
Ultimately, while this ruling does not guarantee compensation for female athletes, it does provide a vital shift in the narrative they have faced for years, challenging the assertion that institutions had no choice in their actions. The next pivotal question remains whether courts will find these answers sufficient to hold NCAA, universities, and athletic organizations financially accountable for their past practices.
