Judge Ends Riley Gaines’ Title IX Suit Against the NCAA Over Federal Funding

On September 28, 2026, a federal judge in Atlanta granted summary judgment to the NCAA in the Title IX lawsuit led by former swimmer Riley Gaines, ruling that the association receives no federal funds and so cannot be sued under Title IX. Gaines says she will appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

The ruling ends, for now, a case that began over the 2022 NCAA women’s swimming championships and became one of the most closely watched lawsuits over transgender athletes in college sports. It did not decide who should compete in women’s events. It decided a narrower question about what kind of organization Title IX reaches. For readers following the longer story, our transgender history and education hub traces how these disputes developed.

What did the court decide?

The court held that the NCAA is not a recipient of federal financial assistance, so the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims could not proceed. U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia granted the NCAA’s motion for summary judgment in an order dated September 28, according to the Latin Times report, “Riley Gaines’ NCAA Lawsuit Tossed — The 11th Circuit Battle Is Just Getting Started” published September 30.

In language quoted in reports of the order, Johnson wrote: “There is no evidence that the NCAA ever received, or could have received, federal funds. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed.” Title IX applies to education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Colleges and universities are recipients. Whether the NCAA itself is one was the question the case ultimately turned on.

Why did federal funding decide the case?

Because Title IX’s obligations attach to federal money, the plaintiffs had to show the NCAA received it. Their theory centered on the NCAA-Department of Defense Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium, a research collaboration on sports concussions. According to the Latin Times, Johnson found that the Department of Defense’s grants went to Indiana University and other participating institutions, not the NCAA, breaking the chain the plaintiffs needed.

The reasoning follows a unanimous Supreme Court precedent. In NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999), in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held: “Dues payments from recipients of federal funds do not suffice to render the dues recipient subject to Title IX.” Member schools pay dues to the NCAA, but under that decision, the dues alone do not make the association a recipient.

How did the case get here?

Gaines and more than a dozen current and former women college athletes filed the suit in March 2024. It centered on the 2022 Division I women’s championships, where Lia Thomas, a transgender woman swimming for the University of Pennsylvania, won the 500-yard freestyle, and Gaines and Thomas tied for fifth in the 200-yard freestyle. The plaintiffs argued the NCAA’s eligibility rules at the time cost them placements and violated their privacy in locker rooms.

The case narrowed over time. According to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse summary of Gaines v. NCAA, Johnson ruled on September 25, 2025, that the claims against the Georgia state defendants and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association should be dismissed, and she dismissed the constitutional claims against the NCAA after finding it is not a state actor. She allowed the Title IX claims against the NCAA to continue on the theory that it had received Defense Department research funding. That theory is what the September 28 order rejected after discovery.

What did each side say?

Gaines said she would appeal. “This momentary setback will not deter me or other women athletes in the least,” she said, as Fox News reported. “Rest assured, we will be appealing this decision.” The Independent Council on Women’s Sports, an advocacy group that supports sex-based eligibility rules in women’s sports, criticized the NCAA’s response: “No promises to women. No assurances. No accountability. The weakest possible response: empty words on a page.”

The NCAA’s statement, also reported by Fox News, did not address the legal question directly: “The NCAA is proud to invest in and expand women’s sports continually, and the NCAA is in full compliance with the Trump administration’s executive order on women’s sports.” The court’s ruling, for its part, rests on the funding question alone and does not weigh the merits of the eligibility rules the suit challenged.

What happens next?

The next step is an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Latin Times reported that Gaines plans to file within the 30-day window for an appeal, and Gaines has said she hopes the case eventually reaches the Supreme Court. An appeal would ask the Eleventh Circuit to review whether the district court was right that the record shows no federal financial assistance reaching the NCAA, the single question on which the case was decided. Until an appeals court rules, the district court’s judgment stands.

The policy the plaintiffs challenged is no longer in force. On February 6, 2025, the day after President Trump signed his executive order on women’s sports, the NCAA limited competition in women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth. The lawsuit therefore concerned events held under the earlier rules. Our coverage of the Supreme Court decision upholding state bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports, our look at the first season under that ruling, and our plain-language guide to transgender laws show how the wider legal landscape has shifted since then and provide background on the statutes involved.

What should readers keep in mind?

The ruling answers a question about statutory coverage, not about fairness or eligibility. It says the NCAA, as the record stood, was not a federal funding recipient. It does not say the plaintiffs’ claims about the 2022 championships were right or wrong, and it does not affect Title IX obligations of the colleges and universities that do receive federal funds. This post reports a court decision and is not legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

What did the court rule in Gaines v. NCAA?

On September 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the NCAA, finding that it does not receive federal financial assistance and so cannot be sued under Title IX.

Why can’t the NCAA be sued under Title IX, according to the ruling?

Title IX applies to recipients of federal financial assistance. The court found no evidence the NCAA received federal funds, including through a Defense Department-funded concussion research consortium whose grants went to participating universities.

What Supreme Court precedent applies?

In NCAA v. Smith (1999), a unanimous Supreme Court held that dues payments from recipients of federal funds do not make the NCAA itself subject to Title IX.

Will Riley Gaines appeal?

Yes. Gaines has said she will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and she hopes the case reaches the Supreme Court.

Is the NCAA policy the lawsuit challenged still in effect?

No. On February 6, 2025, the NCAA limited competition in women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth, the day after President Trump’s executive order on women’s sports.

Does the ruling decide who can compete in women’s college sports?

No. The ruling turns only on whether Title IX covers the NCAA. It does not address the merits of eligibility rules. This is reported information, not legal advice.