NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus About Sports, Equity, and Math

January 13, 2023

UPDATE - January 13, 2023 -- The parties reached  a settlement agreement that prohibits Michigan State University ("MSU") from cutting any women’s team from now until the end of the 2029-30 school year. The agreement also requires MSU’s athletic program to come into full Title IX compliance by the end of the 2026-27 school year, including by requiring the appointment of an independent Gender Equity Review Director and the creation of a Gender Equity Plan.


Read more on the NWLC Blog.


UPDATE - February 1, 2022: The Sixth Circuit ordered the lower court to reconsider Sophia and her swim and diving teammates’ request to stop MSU from cutting their team, consistent with the following corrections: First, there is no “magic number” for Title IX athletics compliance, and the lower court should not have assumed MSU was compliant with Title IX just because its athletics participation gap was less than 2%. Second, the lower court should have compared MSU’s participation gap to the size of a viable team, not the size of the average team at MSU. Third, the lower court should have accepted Sophia and her teammates’ calculations of MSU’s large participation gap based on MSU’s own reported, publicly available data. This decision is a great win because it provides important clarifications on what standards courts must apply when evaluating whether a school’s athletics program is compliant with Title IX.


May 26, 2021 -- NAWL joined the NWLC, along with co-counsel Legal Aid At Work and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and a group of 20+ other civil rights organizations in a Sixth Circuit amicus brief about sports and equity and math, oh my! In Balow v. Michigan State University, we filed in support of Sophia Balow and her varsity swim and diving teammates, who want to stop MSU from cutting their team.


Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in school sports. One way for schools to comply with Title IX is to ensure the total number of spots on all sports teams for each gender is proportionate to each gender’s enrollment. If these numbers aren’t proportionate, the school has a “participation gap” and must see if there are any “viable teams” that can close that gap. A school has a “viable team” in a specific sport if enough students want to join that team and there are other schools to compete with. Under Title IX, schools must compare their “participation gap” with the sizes of any “viable teams” to make decisions about adding or cutting teams.


For example, let’s say women are 60% of students at a school and have 40 of 70 total athletic spots. If the school were to cut the women’s softball team, which has 10 people, women would have only 30 of 60 spots (50%). To close the 10% participation gap, the school would need to add 15 more women’s spots so that women have 45 of 75 spots (60%). Since this gap of 15 is larger than the current softball team of 10, the school can’t cut the softball team. Alternatively, the school would need to add a viable team in another sport to close the gap.


MSU already had a participation gap of 42 (according to data from its own website) and was spending three times more on men’s sports than on women’s sports when it announced its plans to cut the women’s varsity swim and diving team. Sophia and her teammates asked a district court in Michigan to stop MSU from cutting their team, but the court made several critical mistakes and, as a result, denied their request. Our amicus brief to the Sixth Circuit explains the district court’s mistakes.


First, the district court arbitrarily decided that MSU complies with Title IX solely because the court calculated MSU’s participation gap to be less than 2%, even though the Department of Education and many other courts have repeatedly said there is no such “magic number” under Title IX. As the Department has explained, a large school with a 5% gap would need to add more women’s spots than a small school with the same 5% gap. If the district court’s 2% rule is not overturned, large schools like MSU will be able to deprive many women of athletics opportunities.


Second, the district court incorrectly compared MSU’s participation gap with the average size of all women’s sports teams at MSU, instead of with specific sports teams, like the women’s swim and diving team. The average size of all women’s teams at MSU is simply irrelevant to whether Title IX allows MSU to cut a specific team or requires MSU to add a specific team. If the district court’s decision is not overturned, an absurd situation will be allowed: a school will be able to cut its smallest girls’ or women’s teams in order to inflate its average team size, which will allow it to have an ever-larger participation gap. This will make it exceedingly difficult for women and girls to prove that their school is violating Title IX—even when they have far fewer spots to play than men and boys.


Finally, the district court unfairly rejected Sophia and her teammates’ calculations of MSU’s large participation gap based on MSU’s self-reported, publicly available data. Instead, the court accepted MSU’s claims that its participation gap was too low to require adding any new women’s teams—even though MSU never turned over the underlying data for those claims. If this approach is not overturned, school athletics programs will be incentivized to violate Title IX and, if they are sued, they will be rewarded for hiding the evidence from courts and plaintiffs.


We’re fighting for Sophia and her teammates because they—and all women and girls—deserve to have equal opportunities to play sports. MSU’s Title IX violations are egregious but not unique. The national participation gap is almost 1 million for high school girls and 60,000 for college women, and girls of color are doubly disadvantaged. Women and girls face second-class treatment and pervasive sexual abuse in school sports, including, infamously, at MSU. As states continue to pass cruel athletics bans against transgender girls and women, it’s especially critical that we uplift the many real and urgent problems that keep women and girls from achieving gender equity in athletics.



The mission of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) is to provide leadership, a collective voice, and essential resources to advance women in the legal profession and advocate for the equality of women under the law.

Since 1899, NAWL has been empowering women in the legal profession, cultivating a diverse membership dedicated to equality, mutual support, and collective success.

June 24, 2026
Women Lawyers On Guard Inc .  and the National Association of Women Lawyers issue this joint statement on the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . Before Dobbs , we co-led an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of women’s legal organizations, urgi ng the Court to preserve nearly 50 years of settled precedent. That brief explained that women and their families, including women attorneys, have relied on the constitutional guarantee of autonomy over decisions affecting their lives, health, families, and futures. We warned that overturning those precedents would inflict immediate and lasting harm on the health, dignity, equality, and futures of all people who can become pregnant. 1 Four years later, our warnings have proven correct. Dobbs stripped millions of people of a federal constitutional right, allowed states to intrude into the most intimate medical and family decisions, and created a perilous legal landscape in which basic rights depend on geography, income, and access to legal and medical resources. This is not abstract. It is a daily, preventable harm caused by laws designed to restrict and, in many cases, eliminate access to abortion care. Across the country, abortion bans and restrictions have forced patients into medical emergencies, delayed or denied essential care, and deepened long-standing inequities for those with the fewest resources, including people of color, rural communities, young people, immigrants, and those already facing barriers to health care. In Texas, for example, reporting has documented women who died after emergency pregnancy or miscarriage care was delayed because doctors and hospitals feared that treatment could be viewed as a violation of the state’s abortion ban. Dobbs has also created a two-tier system of rights in which access to essential health care depends on state lines: patients from Texas and other ban states must travel hundreds or thousands of miles, often at great personal cost, while protective states use shield laws and expanded services to preserve access in the face of escalating interstate conflict. Access to fundamental health care should not depend on a person’s ZIP code, income, age, race, or ability to navigate a hostile legal landscape. The fight for access has now moved beyond state bans to nationwide attacks on medication abortion. Mifepristone, part of the most common medication abortion regimen, has been approved by the FDA for more than two decades and is used in a majority of abortions in the United States. Yet current litigation over mifepristone seeks to reimpose medically unnecessary limits on telehealth prescribing, pharmacy dispensing, and mailing—restrictions that might function as a national ban on practical access to medication abortion, even where abortion remains legal. So much for leaving abortion to the states. The dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan recognized what the majority rejected: “Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.” On this anniversary, we renew our commitment to the work required to restore and protect reproductive freedom. We call on lawmakers, courts, bar leaders, and members of the legal profession to meet this moment with urgency, courage, and action. As women lawyers’ organizations, we will continue to use our voices, our expertise, and the power of the law to fight for reproductive health and justice. [1] Read our brief here: https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Organizations-of-Women-Lawyers-Amicus-Brief.pdf .
April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
More Posts