0
Started By
Message
re: Federal Judge rules NCAA is not subject to Title IX
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:39 am to Che Boludo
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:39 am to Che Boludo
The judge's ruling
Johnson previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional and bodily-privacy claims, as well as their claims against the University System of Georgia, Georgia Tech and other state defendants.
The ruling creates a complicated way that the state schools are not subject and that all schools who are members of NCAA would be subject to NCAA rules for eligibility.
The entire ruling is a way to use NCAA exceptions of Title IX to force all college woman's athletics to include men in eligibility
Johnson previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional and bodily-privacy claims, as well as their claims against the University System of Georgia, Georgia Tech and other state defendants.
The ruling creates a complicated way that the state schools are not subject and that all schools who are members of NCAA would be subject to NCAA rules for eligibility.
The entire ruling is a way to use NCAA exceptions of Title IX to force all college woman's athletics to include men in eligibility
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:02 am to stitchop
NCAA may not be but universities receiving federal money are. This is interesting because those schools then makeup the NCAA.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:13 am to stitchop
quote:
According to the ruling, the state universities are government entities and not subject to Title IX
If a university accepts federal funding it is bound to Title IX.
Nothing changed there.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:19 am to JPLSU1981
Makes sense to me. Any money left over after paying the expenses usually goes into more or better facilities, better conditions or equipment for the athletes, food, training, etc. There aren't shareholders or dividends to payout. Yeah, non-profit.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:27 am to jonnyanony
quote:
If a university accepts federal funding it is bound to Title IX. Nothing changed there.
The problem is that this ruling is designed to give universities a way out also. Dig into the ruling. The judge really wants men to play woman's sports
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:27 am to stitchop
quote:
The problem is that this ruling is designed to give universities a way out also.
quote:
Dig into the ruling.
Show me where.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:29 am to stitchop
quote:
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the NCAA on Monday after concluding that the NCAA is not a recipient of federal financial assistance and therefore not subject to Title IX.
That general proposition was established in NCAA v Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999). Member dues don’t qualify as indirectly receiving federal funds; and thus Title Ix does not apply. The issue here was whether the DoD concussion money was received by the NCAA. If the ncaa indirectly received federal funds then they would be subject to Title IX. Johnson granted the summary judgment on evidentiary issues—namely that there was no evidence that the NCAA received those funds. Order on courtlistener
This post was edited on 9/29/26 at 11:31 am
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:38 am to stitchop
quote:
The problem is that this ruling is designed to give universities a way out also. Dig into the ruling
Where in the Order are you finding this.
The University of Georgia system was dropped a year ago but the basis was the claim was moot because Georgia passed the Riley Gaines Act. Order on Mootness
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:51 am to stitchop
So for context,
This was a suit brought by Riley Gaines and the Independent Council on Women' Sports against the NCAA.
The plaintiffs claimed that the NCAA was violating their Title XI rights by allowing trans women to compete in collegiate sports.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit saying Title XI was not a valid basis for the complaint as the NCAA is not bound by that legislation.
So there is no change in the status of Title XI.
This was a suit brought by Riley Gaines and the Independent Council on Women' Sports against the NCAA.
The plaintiffs claimed that the NCAA was violating their Title XI rights by allowing trans women to compete in collegiate sports.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit saying Title XI was not a valid basis for the complaint as the NCAA is not bound by that legislation.
So there is no change in the status of Title XI.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:51 am to jonnyanony
To the extent a court determines that an NCAA policy imposed by a college or university violates Title IX, a college or university enforcing that policy could be found in violation of Title IX
The NCAA is a voluntary association. Membership is contractual. Schools agree to the NCAA's constitution and bylaws as a condition of participating in NCAA-sanctioned competition. The NCAA's enforcement tools are:
Fines and censure
Vacating records
Reducing scholarship allowances
Banning from postseason/playoff competition
Banning from televised contests
These are eligibility penalties
the schools will then be given exemptions to avoid major penalties that harm the school.
The NCAA is a voluntary association. Membership is contractual. Schools agree to the NCAA's constitution and bylaws as a condition of participating in NCAA-sanctioned competition. The NCAA's enforcement tools are:
Fines and censure
Vacating records
Reducing scholarship allowances
Banning from postseason/playoff competition
Banning from televised contests
These are eligibility penalties
the schools will then be given exemptions to avoid major penalties that harm the school.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:52 am to Windy City
the NCAA is the governing body of college athletics.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:57 am to Windy City
the theory is that individual schools would still have to abide by Title IX, however, the judge preempted that by dismissing the individual schools from the lawsuit.
its a systematic dismantling of taking the students redress away.
step one, remove parties A from the suit,
then, rule that party B is not subject to the law.
The idea of suing the school, in that they have to abide by Title IX has already been shut down
its a systematic dismantling of taking the students redress away.
step one, remove parties A from the suit,
then, rule that party B is not subject to the law.
The idea of suing the school, in that they have to abide by Title IX has already been shut down
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:02 pm to stitchop
quote:
the NCAA is the governing body of college athletics.
The NCAA is just pass through instrument for member universities. There is all sorts of case law on the books that shows the NCAA as not subject ot Title XI as well.
1999 NCAA vs. Smith is the baseline here.
NCAA vs Smith JUSTIA
quote:
Respondent Smith played intercollegiate volleyball for two seasons at St. Bonaventure University. After she graduated from St. Bonaventure, Smith enrolled in postgraduate programs at Hofstra University and the University of Pittsburgh. She sought to play intercollegiate volleyball at those schools, but the NCAA denied her eligibility on the basis of its postbaccalaureate restrictions. At Smith's request, Hofstra and the University of Pittsburgh petitioned the NCAA to waive the restrictions, but, each time, the NCAA refused. Smith filed this lawsuit pro se, alleging, among other things, that the NCAA had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which proscribes sex discrimination in "any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a). The NCAA moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to allege that the NCAA is a recipient of federal financial assistance.
It was litigated to the Supreme court where a 9-0 Decision shut the case down saying the NCAA is not bound by Title XI.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:03 pm to stitchop
quote:
To the extent a court determines that an NCAA policy imposed by a college or university violates Title IX, a college or university enforcing that policy could be found in violation of Title IX
To the extent a university violates Title IX they violate Title IX. Their relationship to the NCAA is immaterial
quote:
schools will then be given exemptions to avoid major penalties that harm the school.
A contractual relationship does not exempt a party from a federal statute. Indeed, intervening illegality can provide an excuse for non performance of that contract
None of that is in this order
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News