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.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

June 30, 2025

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , ruling 6–3 that individual Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials to enforce the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. The Court’s decision could pave the way for states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even when doing so limits access to essential reproductive and preventive health care -- and even when the sole basis for doing so is for ideological reasons. This ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive justice and health equity. By narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge state actions that restrict access to care, the Court has further eroded the legal tools available to protect the rights of patients who rely on Medicaid to access fundamental healthcare, including preventative and general care and access to contraception. Marginalized communities will likely be disparately affected. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a powerful dissent, emphasized the real-world consequences of the majority’s decision: “[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’” NAWL is proud to have joined with the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief which underscored the importance of preserving legal avenues for patients to challenge discriminatory and harmful state policies. NAWL stands in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights advocates, and the millions of individuals whose access to care is now at greater risk. We urge our members and allies to continue advocating for a legal system that upholds the rights, health, and dignity of all people—regardless of income, identity, or geography. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting . Hear about this Supreme Court term’s major decisions affecting NAWL’s mission from Arabella Babb Mansfield Award Recipients and co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School; Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law; and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Additionally, after a workshop screening of the film Zurawski v Texas , Cici Coquillette from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Cassie Ehrenberg from The Lawyering Project and Abortion Defense Network will specifically discuss the Medina decision.

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

June 24, 2025

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti , which upholds a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender-affirming medical care —such as puberty blockers and hormones— for transgender minors. In the 6–3 decision, the Court held that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, despite its discriminatory targeting of transgender youth by explicitly permitting hormone treatments and gender-affirming care for youth who identify as cisgender, while denying the same care for youth who identify as trans. This ruling has the potential to reshape access to health care and marks a profound erosion of the Equal Protection clause as a tool for challenging laws that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a searing dissent, laid bare the consequences of the Court’s refusal to confront the reality of this legislation: “[T]he majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.” As an organization committed to advancing gender equity under the law, NAWL stands with transgender individuals, families, advocates, and scholars who continue this long fight. The Court’s application of rational basis review to state laws targeting a specific “medical use” may also have far-reaching negative consequences on gender health equity more broadly, including access to reproductive care. NAWL calls on its members and allies to speak out, support impacted communities, and work toward a legal system rooted in dignity, equity, and justice for all. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting during the session, “ U.S. v. Skrmetti : The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare,” featuring National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and Executive Director of the Williams Institute Christy Mallory .

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus About Sports, Equity, and Math

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

NAWL Joins Bar Associations' Amicus Brief in Support of Susman Godfrey LLP

NAWL Joins New York State Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Survivor Justice

NAWL Joins U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Reproductive Justice

NAWL Joins 1st Circuit Amicus Brief Against Educational Censorship