The Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision affirming that Title IX permits federally funded schools to separate athletic teams based on biological sex is being hailed as a potential turning point for female athletes seeking damages in lawsuits against the NCAA, universities, and athletic conferences over policies that allowed transgender-identifying male athletes to compete in women's sports.
While the ruling did not award damages to any individual athletes, legal experts and attorneys involved in two prominent cases say the decision undermines the legal defenses used by athletic bodies that argued Title IX required them to allow biological males who identify as female to compete on women's teams. The cases, including a lawsuit led by former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines against the NCAA and a separate suit by former San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser against the university and the Mountain West Conference, seek compensatory and punitive damages for female athletes who allege they lost equal opportunities, privacy, safety, or fair competition under those policies.
Bill Bock, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in both cases through the Independent Council on Women's Sports (ICONS), described the Supreme Court's ruling as "huge" because it "absolutely shredded" the reasoning previously used by lower courts and athletic organizations. All nine justices agreed that Title IX and its regulations allow schools to exclude transgender females from participating on girls' and women's teams. Bock argued that the NCAA, the Mountain West Conference, and the institutions being sued now "had no basis for what they did to women." He noted that the NCAA's primary defenses have been that Title IX does not apply to the organization and that it was required to allow transgender athletes to compete under Title IX. "They're wrong on both counts," Bock said.
The Gaines lawsuit stems from the 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships, where former University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas competed in women's events. The plaintiffs, representing a proposed class of female athletes who competed at those championships, are seeking damages for lost titles, scholarships, and roster spots. A federal judge has already dismissed claims against Georgia defendants and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association, finding that the challenged policy decisions came from the NCAA. The remaining Title IX claims against the NCAA hinge on whether the organization is covered by Title IX due to alleged federal funding ties, including a concussion-research partnership with the Department of Defense.
In the Slusser case, female volleyball players sued over policies tied to a transgender player on San Jose State's women's volleyball team. A federal judge dismissed the Mountain West defendants and most claims, but Bock said he will appeal. The judge left pending Title IX damages claims against the California State University Board, which oversees San Jose State, and specifically delayed ruling on those claims until after the Supreme Court decided the related case, B.P.J. v. West Virginia. In March, the judge noted that his earlier preliminary injunction ruling had relied in part on the 2020 Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which involved gay and transgender workers, but that reading was "now called into question and might be upended" by the women's sports case. The Supreme Court has now explicitly stated that Bostock does not control the Title IX sports issue, emphasizing that Title VII employment law and Title IX athletics are "vastly different" contexts.
Marshi Smith, a former University of Arizona swimming star and co-founder of ICONS, called the Supreme Court ruling a "huge battle won" but stressed that the fight is not over. "We're lacking accountability still," Smith said, pointing to women and girls who lost "titles, national championships, even up to world championships, records, roster spots, scholarships." Kaitlynn Wheeler, a former University of Kentucky swimmer and plaintiff in the Gaines case, described the ruling as "a super validating moment" after female athletes had been "asking for fairness for years."
The California State University system responded to the ruling by stating that it will continue to follow all applicable federal and state laws, noting that San Jose State complied fully with the law in effect in 2024 and prior. "The ruling establishes the legal standard going forward and does not change the law that applied previously," the statement read. The NCAA and the Mountain West Conference did not immediately respond to requests for comment.