Amicus Brief by Spring Arbor University President and Wagner Faith & Freedom Center Highlights Fairness for Women in Supreme Court Sports Cases

Washington, D.C. — The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in two closely watched cases addressing the future of women’s sports and whether female athletic programs may be required to permit male athletes to compete in women’s competitions.

Among the amici curiae supporting female athletes were Spring Arbor University President Dr. Brent Ellis and the Wagner Faith & Freedom Center, represented by the Hon. William Wagner (Ret), who authored the amici briefs submitted to the Court.

The cases arise from a growing national debate over whether legal protections rooted in fluid gender identity theories may override longstanding sex-based athletic classifications grounded in biological reality. Female athletes challenging these policies argue that allowing male athletes to compete in women’s sports undermines fairness, safety, and equal athletic opportunity.

Institutional Experience Brought Before the Court

The amici briefs draw on the institutional experience of Spring Arbor University (SAU), a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), the second-largest governing body of collegiate sports in the United States, representing 237 institutions across 21 conferences.

At SAU, women compete in basketball, bowling, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, tennis, track and field, and volleyball. Men compete in baseball, basketball, bowling, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, tennis, and track and field, while competitive cheer and esports are designated as coeducational.

President Ellis serves on the NAIA Council of Presidents and was an active participant in a two-year NAIA Task Force established to review policies governing sports participation. That Task Force conducted an extensive review of scientific, competitive, and safety considerations affecting collegiate athletics.

A Brandeis-Style Amicus Brief

Professor Wagner’s amicus submission employed a Brandeis-style approach, presenting empirical data and real-world institutional findings rather than abstract theory. The brief summarized the NAIA Task Force’s conclusions that biological sex is materially relevant to athletic performance, particularly where sports involve combinations of strength, speed, and stamina.

The Task Force determined that, across NAIA sports, male physiological advantages directly affect competitive outcomes, athlete safety, and the allocation of limited opportunities such as roster spots and athletic scholarships. Based on these findings, the NAIA unanimously adopted a policy creating separate male and female categories in order to “support fair and safe competition opportunities for all student athletes.”

Protecting Women’s Opportunities

The amici argued that sex-based athletic classifications are not rooted in stereotypes, but in objective biological science. According to the brief, maintaining female sports categories is rationally related to preserving fairness, ensuring safety, and preventing the displacement of female athletes by male competitors in women’s sports.

The Wagner Faith & Freedom Center, housed on the campus of Spring Arbor University, also emphasized its broader mission to preserve the freedom of institutions and citizens to advocate truthfully, compassionately, and peacefully on contested cultural issues. The Center has emerged as a leading voice defending educational and expressive freedom in matters involving faith, law, and public policy.

National Implications

The Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases are expected to have sweeping implications for collegiate athletics, Title IX enforcement, and the ability of schools and athletic associations to recognize biological sex distinctions in sports.

As the Court considers the arguments presented today, the amici supporting women athletes urge a resolution that honors both equal opportunity and the biological realities that have long justified separate female athletic programs.

A decision from the Court is expected later this term.