Trump Administration's Executive Order Invoked as Aid for Title IX Sports Protection
In a significant development, a federal judge has ordered Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) to reinstate women’s beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams while the Title IX lawsuit filed by six female athletes is pending [1][2]. The university has appealed this decision, citing financial and logistical difficulties in reinstating the teams so close to the fall semester, but the U.S. District Court has not ruled on the appeal yet [1].
The lawsuit, which seeks class action status and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael J. Truncale, a Trump appointee, alleges that SFA's decision to cut these teams continues the university's history of depriving women equal opportunities in varsity intercollegiate athletics [3]. The court found that SFA failed to meet Title IX’s three-prong test for compliance, noting that women make up 63% of undergraduates but only receive about 45.6% of athletic opportunities, showing a significant disparity [2].
SFA has attempted to defend itself by claiming that its non-varsity competitive cheerleading program should be counted toward its Title IX compliance. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that these factors do not justify failing to meet the interests and abilities of current or prospective female students [2][3].
Regarding President Donald Trump's executive order on college sports, there is no publicly available evidence from the current search results that Trump’s executive orders have affected this specific Title IX lawsuit against SFA.
The SFA litigation is challenging the university's decision to cut women's sports teams and is being closely watched by some lawyers who believe it could be a harbinger of many more similar Title IX college sports lawsuits [4]. The athletes are arguing that the university's claims of financial hardship are contradicted by its participation in the House v. NCAA settlement [5].
In a filing last week, the plaintiffs argued that SFA's decision to eliminate the beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams is not necessary for legitimate financial reasons, as it has chosen to distribute up to $20.5 million in revenue to athletes this coming academic year [6]. The plaintiffs have also emphasized that Fifth Circuit precedent, adopted in the 2000 case Pederson v. Louisiana State University, requires a three-part test for Title IX compliance in college sports [7].
The athletes filed a notice of supplemental authority, citing Trump's executive order titled "Saving College Sports." The university, however, is citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to argue that federal courts are not obligated to defer to longstanding Office of Civil Rights (OCR) policy when determining Title IX compliance [8].
As the case progresses, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for Title IX compliance in college sports across the United States. The SFA litigation is currently the first major Title IX college sports lawsuit to be filed in the wake of the House settlement's approval.
[1] [News Article 1] [2] [News Article 2] [3] [Court Document 1] [4] [Interview with Legal Expert 1] [5] [News Article 3] [6] [Court Document 2] [7] [Court Document 3] [8] [Supreme Court Ruling Document]
- The SFA litigation, being closely watched by some lawyers, could signal a rise in similar Title IX college sports lawsuits, debating the equality of opportunities in varsity intercollegiate athletics.
- Despite SFA's claims of financial hardship in reinstating women's sports teams, the athletes argue that the university's distribution of up to $20.5 million in revenue to athletes this academic year contradicts these arguments.
- In the ongoing case, the court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for Title IX compliance in college sports across the United States, with the SFA litigation being the first major Title IX college sports lawsuit to be filed in the wake of the House settlement's approval.
