Federal Court Narrows but Does Not End Debate Over Transgender Athletes and Title IX in College Sports

Quick Hits

• A federal court largely dismissed challenges to the NCAA’s former transgender-participation policies but allowed a narrow Title IX claim against the NCAA to proceed to targeted discovery focused on whether the NCAA is a federal funding recipient.
• The court rejected constitutional claims against the NCAA, reaffirming that the NCAA is not a state actor, and found many claims against Georgia public institutions moot in light of Georgia’s new “Riley Gaines Act.”
• The decision arrives as the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to hear cases addressing state laws governing participation by transgender girls and women in female sports, underscoring the unsettled national landscape.

Background

On September 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson (N.D. Ga.) issued an order largely dismissing the lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s former transgender-participation policies, while permitting a limited aspect of the plaintiffs’ claim against the NCAA under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to proceed to targeted discovery. The ruling narrows the immediate dispute but positions the case for potentially consequential developments regarding the scope of Title IX and the NCAA’s obligations. The decision also arrives as the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to hear Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which concern the legality of state laws restricting participation by transgender girls and women in female sports.

The District Court’s Decision

At the heart of the lawsuit is a challenge to NCAA policies that, until recently, allowed transgender women (athletes assigned male at birth) to compete in women’s sports and access female-designated facilities. The plaintiffs alleged these policies undermined the fairness, safety, and privacy of women’s athletics and violated Title IX and constitutional protections.

The court dismissed most claims against the State of Georgia’s public universities as moot in light of Georgia’s “Riley Gaines Act.” That statute now bars Georgia’s public universities from hosting or participating in competitions where “biologically male athletes” may compete against women or use women’s facilities, thereby supplying the relief sought—at least within Georgia.

Separately, the court rejected constitutional claims against the NCAA, reaffirming that the NCAA, as a private association, is not a state actor. As a result, the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments (including privacy and equal protection claims) may not be used to directly challenge NCAA policies.

Title IX Recipient Theory

Although most of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed, a potentially significant Title IX theory remains. The plaintiffs contend the NCAA is a “recipient” of federal financial assistance—specifically through a concussion-research partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense (now the “U.S. Department of War”)—and therefore directly subject to Title IX’s nondiscrimination requirements, including those that govern sex-based eligibility rules.

This theory is framed against the Supreme Court’s decision in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999). In Smith, the Court held that the NCAA was not a Title IX recipient merely because it collected dues from member institutions that received federal funds. The Court’s ruling was narrow, however, and left open whether other forms of assistance—such as direct grants or formal partnerships—could trigger Title IX coverage.

Here, the court allowed limited discovery focused on whether NCAA research was directly or indirectly funded by the Department of Defense and whether the NCAA directly or indirectly plays a role in deciding how those funds are used. The court observed that, while it is unclear whether federal funds “ever rested in NCAA’s coffers,” the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a funding relationship that, if proven, could bring the NCAA within Title IX’s ambit. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations, if substantiated, would be sufficient to treat the NCAA as a Title IX recipient.

What’s Next

The court ordered a ninety‑day discovery period limited to the NCAA’s relationship with the Department of Defense and whether that relationship makes the NCAA a recipient of federal funds for Title IX purposes. After this focused discovery, the NCAA may move to dismiss if the record does not support Title IX coverage. A determination that the NCAA is a Title IX recipient would mark a notable departure from the posture in Smith and could expand Title IX’s reach to the NCAA itself, potentially shaping national standards for how federal funding triggers nondiscrimination obligations in college sports.

Statements From the Parties

The plaintiffs’ counsel characterized the ruling as a meaningful step toward establishing that the NCAA violated Title IX by allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports. The NCAA, for its part, stated that it does not receive federal financial assistance that would subject it to Title IX and emphasized its ongoing promotion of women’s sports, investments in women’s championships, and commitment to fair competition. The NCAA also asserted that its transgender participation policy aligns with current federal guidance.

The Supreme Court’s Docket and the Broader Landscape

The Gaines decision unfolds alongside significant Supreme Court activity. In this term, the Court is expected to hear Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., each addressing state laws restricting participation in girls’ and women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth. The Court is poised to consider, among other issues, the level of constitutional scrutiny applicable to such laws and the interplay with Title IX. These decisions could provide much‑needed clarity or sharpen the conflict among jurisdictions and governing bodies.

The Bottom Line

Gaines does not resolve the national debate over transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports. It narrows the controversy for now and tees up a focused question that could be transformative: whether the NCAA is itself a recipient of federal financial assistance subject to Title IX. With a short discovery window on that issue and Supreme Court review of related state‑law challenges on the horizon, the legal landscape for college sports remains fluid. If the NCAA is found to be a Title IX recipient, its eligibility policies—including those concerning transgender athletes—would need to align with federal nondiscrimination requirements as interpreted by courts and federal agencies.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group, Higher Education Practice Group, and Sports and Entertainment Industry Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Higher Education, and Sports and Entertainment blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts