A federal judge sided with several female student athletes in their Title IX lawsuit against Stephen F. Austin University (SFA) over the summer, ordering the school to reinstate the women’s programs.
A month later, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided partial relief to SFA, allowing it to postpone reinstating its women’s bowling program.
By way of background, several female student-athletes sued SFA in June 2025 after the university announced it was cutting women’s beach volleyball, women’s bowling, and both men’s and women’s golf teams. The cuts were announced as a response to the financial demands associated with the NCAA’s new revenue-sharing model. The plaintiffs argued that the elimination of these teams unlawfully discriminated against women and violated Title IX.
On August 1, 2025, a federal judge issued an order forcing SFA to immediately reinstate the women’s beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams, while the litigation continued.
Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Donna Lopiano determined that women currently make up 63% of SFA’s undergraduate population and receive only 45.6% of the athletic opportunities. According to Dr. Lopiano’s calculations, SFA needs to add 223 varsity intercollegiate athletic opportunities for women to achieve proportionality. Furthermore, “if the beach volleyball, bowling, and men’s and women’s golf teams are eliminated and the other facts stay the same, the female athlete participation gap will increase to 245.” In fact, SFA’s own 2024 Title IX Summary report prepared by Helen Grant in January 2025 stated: “SFA is not providing male and female athletics participation rates in substantial proportionality to the male and female undergraduate enrollment rates.”
Grant’s January 2025 report recommended SFA preserve all women’s teams and add two more to comply with Title IX. SFA cut three women’s teams instead, offering its financial condition as a defense. The district judge rejected that justification, stating, “the court finds that the financial burden self-imposed by SFA does not outweigh the harm suffered by plaintiffs. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs satisfied their burden for issuance of a preliminary injunction.”
The district judge also rejected SFA’s request that, instead of reinstating the women’s teams, the court should allow it to develop a plan to comply with Title IX. The order says:
“SFA asks the court that, in the event it finds injunctive relief is warranted, it should afford SFA an opportunity to create a plan to demonstrate compliance. The court declines to provide SFA with this opportunity, especially considering it had the chance to become compliant with Title IX in January when it received the report indicating it was not in compliance with the statute. Instead of seeking compliance, it cut three women’s programs. This does not demonstrate any desire to be compliant. Therefore, injunctive relief is proper.”
The decision was described as “a huge victory for the women athletes at SFA, female athletes nationwide, and everyone who cares about gender equity and the rule of law,” according to Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. “SFA made an intentional, considered business decision to eliminate women’s teams when its own Title IX consultant had already told SFA it was violating the law and needed to add women’s teams. That’s sex discrimination, plain and simple.”
John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson Black and Cook in Boulder, CO, and James L. Sowder and Ellen Platt of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP, in Dallas, TX, are co-counsel for the women athletes.
SFA then appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the judge should not have relied on the three-part test for Title IX compliance. The Fifth Circuit issued a partial stay, allowing SFA to postpone reinstating the women’s bowling team for the moment, while it considers SFA’s appeal
