FEATURED
Swarthmore College has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it by a transgender athlete kicked off the women’s track team, arguing the confusing and conflicting issue will soon be decided by the Supreme Court and administrators simply sought to follow federal guidelines.
Lawyers argue that the plaintiff, a biological male who identifies as female and who was removed from the women’s track team last spring in an effort to comply with President Trump’s Title IX policies, cannot sue for damages since campus leaders were genuinely trying to navigate a complicated issue.
Through recent filings in the case, the college argues Title IX addresses only “sex,” not “gender identity,” and permits biological sex-based division in sports. It also requests a stay pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J., which could affirm state powers to enforce such bans without violating Title IX.
“Indeed, while the prior presidential administration suggested that gender identity is protected by Title IX, the current administration has suggested that it would violate Title IX to permit transgender female athletes to participate in women’s sports,” the college states in court documents.
“…That the courts themselves cannot decide whether Title IX applies to the circumstances presented here without Supreme Court intervention underscores that Swarthmore was not on clear notice that its conduct violated Title IX, which is a prerequisite to issue damages.”
In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which threatens to pull federal funding for non-compliant schools. The new policy limits women’s competitions, using Title IX, to athletes who are biological females.
The plaintiff, Evelyn “Evie” Parts, began hormone replacement therapy as a high school junior and is listed as “female” on his birth certificate, social security card, and driver’s license; Parts had run on Swarthmore’s women’s team since 2020, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Parts, who graduated in May from the private institution, sued Swarthmore in August.
As previously reported by The College Fix, Swarthmore eventually “fully reinstated” Parts on the women’s team after retaining attorneys, including Susie Cirilli. Swarthmore Associate Director of Athletics Valerie Gomez allegedly “acknowledged the stress” Parts endured by not being allowed to run with women. Parts allegedly had “commenced engaging in self-harm” through cutting, and informed a friend he contemplated suicide.
Cirilli did not respond to requests for comment.
Alisa Giardinelli, assistant vice president of communications at Swarthmore, told The College Fix that the college took a position “that as an NCAA member institution, we are obligated to follow the NCAA’s Participation Policy for Transgender Student-Athletes.”
At the start of this school year, Swarthmore required all athletes to sign an acknowledgement form for the new policy.
Several students told the Swarthmore Phoenix student newspaper they opposed the new policy. One student called it “active discrimination.” Another told the paper: “Even just by the title, I said, ‘Are we acknowledging that transgender individuals exist?’”
Swarthmore defends its position following NCAA rules.
“Generally speaking, all of our student-athletes are required to acknowledge that they’ve read the college’s Student-Athlete Manual at the start of the academic year, and they are required to sign off on various compliance and NCAA pre-participation forms,” Giardinelli told The Fix.
She also said “I want to reiterate that Swarthmore deeply values our transgender community members and the many ways they enrich campus life. We offer numerous resources to create a welcoming, supportive, and inclusive environment for transgender individuals.”
In a statement to the Phoenix, Parts’s attorney Cirilli wrote, “As stated in the complaint, the NCAA is a private organization that issued a bigoted policy. Swarthmore College chose to follow that policy and disregard federal and state law.”
The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, a civil rights advocacy group, told The Fix that separating men and women’s sports is a legal requirement under Title IX, and that “this case sits at the center of a fundamental debate about fairness, inclusion, and the proper interpretation of civil rights law.”
“Title IX’s original purpose was to ensure equal opportunities for biological females in education,” FAIR executive director Monica Harris said. “Colleges should develop transparent, evidence-based policies that acknowledge biological realities and prioritize fairness in competitive sports.”
In 2020, the Supreme Court held that Title VII protected “gender identity” under the umbrella of the word “sex.” Under the Biden administration, Title IX was interpreted the same as Title VII. Harris said this interpretation is legally unsound.
“It’s important to keep in mind that Title IX explicitly permits sex-separated athletics, bathrooms, and housing in ways Title VII’s employment context does not,” she said. This raises “legitimate questions about whether Bostock’s workplace analysis directly applies to educational settings with different statutory structures and purposes.”
The Defending Freedom Institute, a conservative nonprofit that litigates cases in higher education, filed an amicus brief in West Virginia, saying “Congress made clear in Title IX that some sex-based distinctions are necessary to preserve those opportunities, including athletics.”
