Title: Utilizing Trump's Executive Order to Safeguard Athletic Programs in SFA as Perceived by Title IX Litigants
In a significant development, a federal court has blocked Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) from cutting women's sports programs, including beach volleyball, bowling, and golf. The court decision, issued on August 1, 2025, comes as a response to the lawsuit filed by six female athletes against the university.
The court found that SFA was "nowhere near close to substantial compliance" with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination in education, including athletics. The court highlighted that although women make up 63% of the undergraduate student body, they received only 45.6% of athletic opportunities.
SFA had argued that the cut sports were less popular and lacked regional sponsorship, but the court rejected these claims, ordering the university to preserve all women's varsity programs while the lawsuit is pending.
Currently, SFA is expected to appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, until any further ruling, the women's teams will participate in the upcoming school year.
The SFA litigation is seeking class action status and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael J. Truncale, a Trump appointee. The athletes are challenging the university's decision to cut women's beach volleyball, bowling, golf, and men's golf teams, arguing that it continues to deprive women equal opportunities in varsity intercollegiate athletics.
The SFA plaintiffs have emphasized that Fifth Circuit precedent, adopted in Pederson v. Louisiana State University, requires a three-part test for Title IX compliance in cases of gender discrimination in sports. They argue that SFA's decision to provide revenue-sharing payments to athletes undermines its assertion of financial necessity for eliminating women's teams.
Meanwhile, SFA has attempted to defend itself by claiming that its non-varsity competitive cheerleading program should be counted toward Title IX compliance. However, the athletes contend that this argument is misleading, as competitive cheerleading is not a Title IX-regulated sport.
Interestingly, President Donald Trump issued an executive order last week on college sports, titled "Saving College Sports." However, none of the search results explicitly connect the lawsuit or court rulings to this executive order, suggesting that the SFA litigation is primarily focused on Title IX compliance challenges and court rulings rather than direct citation or influence from Trump's executive order.
Some lawyers believe that the SFA litigation is a harbinger of many more similar Title IX college sports lawsuits. As the first major Title IX college sports lawsuit filed in the wake of the House settlement's approval, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future litigation.
In a separate development, SFA's participation in the House v. NCAA settlement allows it to distribute up to $20.5 million in revenue to athletes this coming academic year. Whether this revenue distribution will impact the university's financial justification for cutting sports remains to be seen.
The university 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 OCR policy when determining Title IX compliance. However, the court's decision to block the university from cutting women's sports programs seems to contradict this argument.
As the SFA litigation unfolds, the university and the athletes await the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which could have far-reaching implications for Title IX compliance in college sports across the United States.
People are closely following the SFA litigation, a class action lawsuit seeking Title IX compliance in college sports, particularly its impact on women's education-and-self-development and equal opportunities in athletics. The court's order to preserve all women's varsity programs has sparked debates about general-news topics such as politics and the role of federal courts in enforcing anti-discrimination laws like Title IX. Despite SFA's argument that its financial situation justifies cutting sports, some lawyers suggest that awaiting the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling could set a significant precedent for Title IX compliance in college sports across the nation. Meanwhile, sports enthusiasts keep a close eye on the upcoming school year to see how the ongoing developments might affect women's sports programs at Stephen F. Austin State University.
