In January 2026, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court overturned an arbitration ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that had revoked the Olympic bronze medal earned by U.S. gymnast Jordan Chiles in the women’s floor exercise at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris.
The Swiss court concluded that the original arbitration proceeding suffered from serious procedural deficiencies and that newly obtained video evidence could materially alter the outcome of the dispute. As a result, the court vacated the CAS award and ordered that the matter be reheard in a new arbitration proceeding.
Gibson Dunn, along with its co-counsel Homburger AG, successfully represented Chiles. Specifically, the plaintiff’s team included Maurice M. Suh, Al Suarez, and Zachary C. Freund of Gibson Dunn and Gabrielle Nater Bass of Homburger AG.
Background
During the women’s floor exercise final in Paris in August 2024, Chiles initially received a score of 13.666. Her coach submitted an inquiry challenging the evaluation of a particular element in the routine. The judging panel accepted the inquiry and increased Chiles’ score to 13.766. That revised score elevated her into third place behind Brazil’s Rebeca Andrade and fellow American Simone Biles, resulting in a historic podium featuring two American gymnasts and a Brazilian champion.
Shortly after the medal ceremony, however, the Romanian Gymnastics Federation initiated an arbitration before the CAS. The federation argued that Chiles’ coach had submitted the inquiry outside the permissible time window set by international gymnastics regulations. If the inquiry had indeed been late, the score adjustment would have been invalid, and the medal standings would have changed.
The CAS convened an expedited arbitration proceeding while the Olympic Games were still ongoing. After reviewing the available evidence, including a timekeeping report indicating that the inquiry was recorded 64 seconds after Chiles’ original score was posted, the CAS concluded that the inquiry had been filed four seconds after the one-minute deadline. Although the panel acknowledged that the evidence concerning the timing was not definitive, it ruled that the inquiry was untimely and rescinded Chiles’ bronze medal.
Post-Award Discovery of Video Evidence
Following the CAS decision, Chiles, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and USA Gymnastics located new video footage that directly captured the moment when the coach made the inquiry. The footage had been recorded by a documentary crew affiliated with Religion of Sports, which had been filming the competition for a series focusing on Simone Biles.
According to Chiles’ legal team, the video demonstrated that the coach initiated the inquiry within the permitted time frame. In other words, the inquiry was timely, and the score adjustment that awarded Chiles the bronze medal was proper. The evidence also revealed that the CAS had relied on the time when the inquiry was logged in the scoring system rather than when it was verbally communicated to judges — two distinct moments under competition procedures.
Although Chiles attempted to submit the video evidence shortly after the CAS ruling, the arbitration had already concluded. Consequently, Chiles filed a challenge before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which has limited authority under Swiss law to review CAS decisions for procedural violations.
Legal Issues Before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court
Under Swiss arbitration law, the Federal Supreme Court does not review the merits of sports arbitration decisions but may annul an award if fundamental procedural rights were violated. Chiles argued that the CAS proceedings deprived her of a fair opportunity to present her case because of inadequate notice and extreme time pressure.
Specifically, Chiles and the U.S. gymnastics authorities asserted that they received less than 24 hours’ notice of the arbitration and were not provided with critical information submitted by the Romanian federation, including the timekeeping report on which the CAS relied. According to the petition, these deficiencies prevented the defense from gathering and presenting relevant evidence—most importantly, the documentary footage confirming the timing of the inquiry.
The Court’s Decision
After reviewing the record, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court agreed that significant procedural irregularities had occurred. The court found that “major and repeated notification errors” attributable to the CAS created an imbalance between the parties and placed Chiles under “extraordinary time pressure.” These errors deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to locate and present evidence supporting her position.
The court also independently reviewed the newly obtained video footage. In its opinion, the five-judge panel described the video as “conclusive” evidence regarding the timing of the coach’s inquiry. The footage showed that the inquiry was made within the allowable period following the posting of Chiles’ score.
Because the CAS decision rested on a factual determination that the inquiry had been filed too late. And because the new video evidence directly contradicted that conclusion, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that the arbitration award could not stand. The court determined that the evidence, if considered by the CAS, could reasonably lead to a different result favorable to Chiles.
Outcome and Next Steps
The Swiss court therefore vacated the CAS award and ordered that the dispute be reconsidered in a new arbitration proceeding. The forthcoming arbitration will allow Chiles to present the video evidence and other supporting materials in a fully developed hearing.
Importantly, the court’s ruling does not immediately restore Chiles’ bronze medal. Instead, it resets the legal process and requires a new adjudication before the CAS or another arbitral panel. That proceeding will determine whether the inquiry was timely and whether the medal standings from the Paris final should be reinstated.
Significance
The decision is notable for several reasons. First, it represents a rare instance in which the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has overturned a CAS award, as such challenges are granted only in exceptional circumstances. Second, the ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in sports arbitration, particularly in expedited Olympic disputes where time pressures are intense.
Finally, the case highlights the growing role of technological evidence in sports governance. Video footage, captured not by official competition systems but by a documentary film crew, ultimately proved central to challenging the arbitration outcome.
Suh, of Gibson Dunn, said his firm was “delighted that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has righted a wrong and given Jordan the chance she deserves to reclaim her bronze medal. As the Court recognized, there is ‘conclusive’ video evidence that Jordan was the rightful winner of the bronze medal. We also appreciate the Court’s recognition that ‘extraordinary time pressure’ and notification defects prevented Jordan from presenting this important evidence in August 2024. We appreciate that Jordan will receive a full and fair opportunity to defend her bronze medal. She is ready to fight vigorously, and we look forward to helping her achieve that result.”
