The College Sports Commission (CSC) released its first NIL Go platform report since mandatory reporting went into effect in June. From June 11 through August 31, 2025, the CSC reports that 32,000+ registered users submitted 8,359 deals valued at $79.8 million for approval.

According to the CSC, it cleared more than 6,000 deals and designated 332 as “not cleared,” with 75 deals resubmitted. No student athletes demanded arbitration review. According to CSC’s report, the most common clearance issues were due to reporting errors or deals failing to satisfy the valid business purpose requirement. Most deals reportedly cleared within a week. Based on this report, a final determination from the CSC remains pending for thousands of submissions.

Deals are either “cleared,” “not cleared” or “flagged for additional review.” If a deal is not cleared, the student athlete has four options:

(1) Cancel the deal.
(2) Revise and resubmit the deal.
(3) Seek a review of the CSC’s decision through arbitration.
(4) Proceed with the deal and risk enforcement consequences.

The student athlete must demand arbitration within 14 days of the CSC’s decision and an arbitration ruling is to be issued within 45 days. Enforcement consequences can include a student-athlete’s loss of eligibility.

The CSC created NIL Go to review all third-party NIL contracts valued at $600 or more. The platform, developed in collaboration with Deloitte, is designed to root out “pay for play” agreements by evaluating a deal’s fair market value and legitimate business purpose as part of the May 2024 House v. NCAA settlement.

According to CSC CEO Bryan Seely, “This initial report shows the new system is working as intended: legitimate NIL deals are being submitted, reviewed and approved through NIL Go.”

However, not all agree. According to The Collective Association, a trade group representing donor-funded entities, more than $11 million is tied up in pending approvals. Per feedback from its members, “The current system lacks speed, transparency and support needed to serve athletes effectively.”

The CSC intends to produce similar reports periodically.

Jackson Lewis’ Higher Education and Collegiate Athletics Group closely monitors CSC review and enforcement issues and remains available to assist institutions and collectives navigating these evolving compliance demands. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our team.

While much attention this summer was paid to the NCAA’s antitrust litigation regarding NIL compensation and the House settlement, other antitrust challenges to NCAA regulations are progressing across the country. In Brantmeier v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified an injunctive class and a damages class of student-athletes in their challenge to NCAA regulations specific to tennis that require them to forfeit prize money.

To remain NCAA-eligible prior to full-time collegiate enrollment, a student-athlete cannot accept more than $10,000 and the actual and necessary expenses for participation in events. After enrollment, a student-athlete may only accept prize money covering the actual and necessary expenses for participation in events.

The two Brantmeier plaintiffs challenge these regulations which required them to forfeit more than $100,000 in prize money earned prior to and during their collegiate careers. According to the plaintiffs, these regulations violate the Sherman Act’s prohibition on agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. After an initial attempt to certify a class on behalf of all Division I athletes in “individual sports,” the plaintiffs’ amended complaint sought certification for a narrower injunctive and damages class.

Finding the plaintiffs met the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class certification (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation), the district court certified two classes:

  1. Injunctive Class

The injunctive class consists of all persons who competed in Division I Tennis or were ineligible due to the NCAA regulations since March 19, 2020. This class will cover at least 12,000 student-athletes who have competed in Division I Tennis during this time period.

  1. Damages Class

The damages class consists of all persons who voluntarily forfeited prize money to remain NCAA-eligible since March 19, 2020. The plaintiffs claim this class covers more than 60 student-athletes during this time period.

As members of both classes, the district court certified the two plaintiffs as class representatives and their attorneys as class counsel.

In August, the parties submitted a proposed class notice to potential class members for a requested trial date in September 2026.

Jackson Lewis’ Higher Education and Collegiate Athletics Group will continue to closely monitor this and other antitrust challenges to the NCAA’s rules to assist institutions navigating these evolving standards. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to our team.

As the new school year begins, several student-athletes are taking the field thanks to victories in the courtrooms over the summer. Buoyed by a U.S. District Court decision in December 2024 granting a preliminary injunction against the NCAA from enforcing its “Five-Year Rule” rule, several other athletes filed similar antitrust suits against the NCAA to continue their collegiate careers.


The Five-Year Rule requires student-athletes to complete four years of competition within five years of full-time enrollment at a collegiate institution. The NCAA’s definition of “collegiate institution” includes any college-level institution accredited by the Department of Education or unaccredited institutions that have intercollegiate athletics programs — including non-NCAA member institutions.


Student-Athlete Victories
In Pavia v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted a football player a preliminary injunction after finding the student-athlete was likely to succeed on the merits of his antitrust challenge to the NCAA including his time at a Junior College (JUCO), where he began his collegiate career, in calculating his eligibility under the Five-Year Rule. The court agreed with the student-athlete’s argument that, with name, image, and likeness restrictions lifted after NCAA v. Alston, any NCAA rule regulating who can play is commercial in nature and subject to the Sherman Act’s prohibition on agreements that unreasonably restrain trade.


Pending appeal of that decision, the NCAA granted a waiver for the 2025-26 school year for similarly situated student-athletes who transferred from JUCOs and exhausted their eligibility under the Five-Year Rule in the 2024-25 school year.


Other athletes have tested the boundaries of the Pavia decision and the NCAA’s waiver. In April, in Elad v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey applied similar reason as the Pavia court in granting a football player a preliminary injunction where the student-athlete’s JUCO seasons were in the middle of his collegiate career and the NCAA denied his waiver request.


In July, in Braham v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a football player a preliminary injunction, applying similar antitrust reasoning to challenges of the Five-Year Rule and other eligibility rules after the student-athlete was unable to obtain a waiver without the support of his institution.


In August, in Martinson v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court of Nevada granted a preliminary injunction to a football player in his challenge of the Five-Year Rule’s application to his time at a JUCO. In Robinson, et al. v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted four football players a preliminary injunction in their challenges to the Five-Year Rule after withdrawing from the NFL draft because they believed the NCAA waiver applied to them but only to have their waiver request denied. Expressly choosing to follow the decisions in Pavia, Elad, and Braham, the district court acknowledged that it was choosing “not to follow the reasoning of the majority and other well-intentioned district courts that have more recently found that the NCAA’s eligibility rules are not commercial in nature.”


Student-Athlete Losses
As the Robinson court noted, not every student-athlete’s challenge to the Five-Year Rule has been immediately successful. In the spring, several baseball players sought to extend the NCAA’s waiver for the 2025-26 school year to their pending 2025 seasons but were denied. Other student-athletes challenged the Five-Year Rule’s application to seasons at the Division II level or non-NCAA four-year institutions but were denied. These denials largely determined that the NCAA’s eligibility rules were not compensation rules, not commercial in nature, and therefore not subject to antitrust analysis.


In August, in three related cases, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that eligibility rules are not tied to compensation or commercial transactions and denied a preliminary injunction to three football players. The court also found the players’ delay in seeking an injunction undercut claims of irreparable harm.


Potential Circuit Split
The NCAA has appealed all of the preliminary injunctions granted this past spring and summer. In February, in Fourqurean v. NCAA, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a football player a preliminary injunction challenging the Five-Year Rule and his time at a Division II institution. However, in July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision, finding the student-athlete did not adequately establish his antitrust challenge.


The Sixth Circuit is scheduled to hear argument in the Pavia case on Sept. 16. The Third Circuit is scheduled to hear argument in the Elad case on Sept. 17. The NCAA filed its initial brief on Sept. 8 in the Ninth Circuit for the Braham case with a motion to expedite the appeal. The initial brief for the Robinson appeal in the Fourth Circuit is due Oct. 7.


With appeals across four circuits, there is a real risk of a split should any affirm the district court’s decisions for reasons conflicting with the Seventh Circuit’s Fourqurean decision. Should a split develop, these issues will almost certainly be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.


Jackson Lewis’ Higher Education and Collegiate Athletics Group will continue to closely monitor these and other antitrust challenges to the NCAA’s rules to assist institutions navigating these evolving standards. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to our team.

The College Sports Commission (CSC) has updated its guidance to clarify its enforcement position in response to questions over the continued viability of “NIL collectives” and transactions.

The CSC established the NIL Go portal in partnership with Deloitte as part of the House v. NCAA settlement. Through NIL Go, the Commission plans to review and approve all third-party NIL deals exceeding $600 to weed out pay-for-play agreements from legitimate transactions. The CSC will evaluate these NIL based on:

a) The nature of the payor’s relationship with the athlete’s institution (Associated Status);
b) Whether the payment serves a valid business purpose (VBP); and
c) Whether the compensation is comparable to similarly situated athletes engaged in similar promotional work – Range of Compensation (RoC).

According to its updated guidance, the CSC will evaluate the VBP of a transaction to meet all of the following conditions:

(1) Involve the promotion of a for-profit good or service;

(2) Reflect fair market value; and

(3) Serve a legitimate business purpose.

The Commission clarified that its definition of “for-profit” refers to the nature of the transaction, not the tax status or profitability of an entity. This clarification will permit NIL collectives to continue using dual funding sources (donors and commercial partnerships). NIL collectives are organizations, independent of a college or university, that pool funds from donors, alumni, fans, or businesses to help student-athletes profit from their NIL rights.

This clarification builds on prior CSC guidance outlining review of Associated Status to determine the NIL transaction’s relationship with the student-athlete’s institution and RoC using external benchmarks to capture a student-athlete’s NIL value.

The update guidance allows for the CSC’s comprehensive evaluation of each NIL transaction, but uncertainty remains. There is no precedent regarding CSC’s review of these transactions. Thus, enforcement challenges based on inconsistent enforcement and lack of due process are probable. The CSC expects to review and make determinations prior to a transaction being finalized. Thus, the Commission’s ability to make timely determinations and resolve challenges, including through arbitration, surely will affect future NIL deals.

Jackson Lewis’ Higher Education and Collegiate Athletics Group will continue to closely monitor the CSC’s implementation of its updated guidance and remains available to assist institutions and collectives navigating these evolving compliance demands. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to our team.

(Summer Associate Gabrielle Painter contributed to this post.)

In the wake of the landmark June 6, 2025, House v. NCAA settlement, several groups have initiated appeals challenging the Settlement’s terms, asserting Title IX, antitrust, and other related issues.

Title IX and Antitrust Challenges
Three groups of female student-athletes appealed the district court-approved Settlement on grounds that the Settlement violates Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 to the Higher Education Act. Title IX forbids colleges and universities from excluding students from participating in programs, denying them benefits, or subjecting them to discrimination based on sex.

One group challenges the backpay damage calculations under the Settlement agreement as imbalanced, alleging that the calculated damages vastly favor male student-athletes over female student-athletes, in violation of the law.

Another group asserts that the Settlement impermissibly extinguishes Title IX rights through an imbalanced process favoring male student-athletes over female student-athletes.

The third group asserts that the Settlement’s terms violate Title IX but also raises antitrust challenges to the Settlement.

Several additional appeals also assert antitrust challenges to the Settlement, including assertions of inadequate representation of student-athletes (male and female) in negotiating the Settlement and impermissible caps on revenue sharing.

Other Challenges
Male student-athletes also challenge the backpay damages calculations as favoring revenue-generating sports and scholarship student-athletes. They challenge the adequacy of the notice provided to student-athletes during the settlement negotiations. They also challenge whether the opt-out process permitted student-athletes adequate time to protest the final terms.

While these appeals triggered an automatic stay to the distribution of the backpay damages for former and current student-athletes, none requested a stay to the revenue-sharing terms going forward and being overseen by the College Sports Commission. Student-athletes will likely have to wait for a year or more for backpay payments until these appeals are resolved.

The Jackson Lewis Education & Collegiate Sports Group will continue to monitor developments in implementation, enforcement, and challenges to these new standards in collegiate sports. Please feel free to reach out to any member of the Education & Collegiate Sports Group with questions.

The NCAA Division I Council has proposed a rule change to permit student-athletes and institutional staff to place bets on professional sports. If adopted, this change would mark a significant shift from the NCAA’s long-standing ban on all forms of sports wagering by student-athletes and institutional staff. The proposal must be adopted and approved by Divisions II and III and could be in effect as early as October 2025.

What Would Change?

Under the proposal, the NCAA would continue to prohibit:

  • Betting on college sports at all levels;
  • Sharing insider information related to college competitions; and
  • Advertisements or sponsorships related to gambling during NCAA championship events.

However, student-athletes and staff would be permitted to place bets on professional sports. The policy shift would refocus NCAA enforcement efforts to conduct that directly affects collegiate competition integrity.

Why the Change?

The NCAA has recognized that current betting restrictions, which were adopted when sports gambling was largely illegal, may no longer align with today’s legal landscape. With more than 30 states now permitting some form of sports wagering, there has been an increase in NCAA enforcement cases, many of which involve professional sports betting. The new proposal represents a pragmatic shift, acknowledging the legal and cultural normalization of sports betting while protecting the integrity of college sports.

The NCAA continues to emphasize the importance of harm-reduction strategies to address risky betting behavior. In 2023, the NCAA relaxed guidelines for reinstating athletes who bet on professional sports, and leaders voiced support for education-based approaches over “abstinence-only” models. NCAA Chief Medical Officer Dr. Deena Casiero said, “By meeting student-athletes where they are, schools may be more effective at preventing, identifying and supporting student-athletes with problematic gambling behaviors.”

What Should Institutions Consider?

While this policy shift could reduce compliance burdens on NCAA institutions related to professional sports wagering, it also could create other challenges. Institutions must continue to prioritize education, monitoring, and safeguarding the integrity of competition, keeping the following in mind:

  • Betting on college sports remains prohibited and carries significant penalties;
  • Rules related to insider information and gambling-related advertising continue to be enforced; and
  • NCAA offers educational tools, including e-learning modules and integrity resources, that are available for institutions to support in their compliance efforts.

The NCAA’s partnership with Genius Sports, the exclusive distributor of official NCAA data to licensed sportsbooks, along with the creation of a dedicated sports betting integrity unit, underscores the NCAA’s heightened commitment to detecting violations and protecting the well-being of student-athletes.

Looking Ahead

If the proposal is adopted by all three Divisions, institutions should be ready to update their internal policies and ensure that educational messaging clearly distinguishes permissible and impermissible gambling behavior.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor this and other NCAA rule changes and their impact on participating institutions. Please contact a member of our Education and Collegiate Sports Practice Group with questions regarding compliance planning, educational strategies, or policy revisions in light of this change.

A new chapter in college sports began on June 6, when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to the House v. NCAA settlement. This landmark $2.8 billion agreement will fundamentally reshape the structure of Division I athletics.

Among the most significant developments is the creation of the College Sports Commission (CSC), an independent regulatory body created by the “Power 5” conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) and tasked with reining in Division I athletics. The CSC will be the central enforcement arm in this new era and will report to the Power 5 conference commissioners.

According to the CSC’s website, the organization will oversee all enforcement of the House settlement terms including “Revenue Sharing,” “Name, Image and Likeness Deals,” and “Roster Limits.” The CSC states that the NCAA “remains responsible for enforcement of rules not created in connection with the [House] settlement.”

Primarily, the CSC will oversee compliance with institution revenue sharing with student-athletes. Beginning July 1, participating institutions can directly pay athletes up to $20.5 million in the 2025-26 academic year through a revenue-sharing pool. The amount is scheduled to rise annually and expected to reach nearly $33 million by 2035. All Power 5 conference participants are automatically participants in revenue sharing. Other institutions have a June 30, 2025, deadline to “opt in” to revenue sharing to participate in direct student-athlete payments. Importantly, “revenue sharing” preserves the non-employee status of student-athletes — at least for now.

Additionally, the CSC’s influence extends beyond revenue sharing. The organization will oversee NIL compliance through NIL Go, a new system that requires all third-party NIL deals exceeding $600 to be submitted for review. Run in partnership with the accounting firm Deloitte, NIL Go will evaluate whether reported deals meet fair market value standards. If not, deals will be flagged and may be subject to CSC discipline.

With the House settlement eliminating scholarship limits, the CSC will oversee institution compliance with new sport-specific roster limits. This will include oversight of “designated student-athletes,” current athletes and recruits who will receive roster protection and not count against the new roster limits.

On July 6, the CSC named Bryan Seeley, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney and MLB’s head of investigations, as the organization’s first CEO. With a background in high-profile compliance cases (including MLB’s sign-stealing and salary circumvention probes), Seeley will lead the CSC through uncharted terrain. His message: The time for clarity and enforceable rules is now. “The schools that signed on want rules and want them enforced,” Seeley said. “This is a new starting point.” And there’s a lot to enforce.

Uncertainty remains, as industry insiders question whether the system can truly rein in booster-funded collectives. In particular, whether NIL Go will be enforceable and discourage under-the-table deals. Still, the CSC has authority that the NCAA has long lacked, and schools are expected to sign formal participation agreements to abide by its rulings.

By creating the CSC, Power 5 conferences have created their own watchdog—and given it real authority.

Why it matters: For the first time, college athletes will receive direct compensation from their institutions. That shift, combined with NIL oversight and roster restructuring, is meant to bring order to what many had described as the “Wild West” of college sports.

As CSC enforcement ramps up and schools navigate the first year of revenue sharing, legal and legislative questions remain — including Title IX concerns, state law conflicts, and federal efforts to codify the system.

The Jackson Lewis Education and Collegiate Sports Group will continue to monitor developments with the CSC as new issues will arise in implementation, enforcement, and challenges to these new standards in collegiate sports. Please feel free to reach out to any member of the Education and Collegiate Sports Practice Group with questions.

The NCAA has announced “a new era” in college sports, touting “unprecedented” benefits for student-athletes following the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s long-awaited approval of the $2.8 billion settlement in the House antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and the “Power 5” conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC that ends a bar on direct compensation to student-athletes.

Beginning July 1, 2025, institutions competing at the Division I level may provide direct compensation and benefits to student-athletes, subject to an initial cap of approximately $20.5 million and increasing annually based on revenue sharing across the Power 5 conferences. In addition:

  • Scholarship limits will be replaced with sport-specific roster limits. Student-athletes rostered or recruited this past academic year have some protections for their roster spots for the length of their eligibility.
  • Institutions have new reporting requirements. In the next month, institutions must submit a list of all student-athletes eligible for roster protection. Student-athletes must report all third-party name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements valued over $600. After each academic year, each institution must report those student-athlete third-party NIL agreements as well as all NIL agreements and other benefits the institution provided directly to student-athletes and their families.

Rules and procedures for enforcement of these new terms are still developing. However, the NCAA will not be the enforcement body. The Power 5 conferences have established a new College Sports Commission for enforcement of the House settlement terms. Disputes over enforcement – such as student-athlete eligibility and institutional violations – are subject to mandatory expedited arbitration, before designated arbitrators, with binding resolutions within 45 days.

This April, in anticipation of the court accepting these terms, the NCAA’s Division I Board of Governors adopted changes that eliminated more than 150 rules from the Division I 2024/25 Manual. The NCAA will still enforce rules not impacted by the House settlement.

The House settlement provides clear parameters for student-athlete compensation in many ways, but questions still remain. Institutions should expect legal challenges on a number of related issues, including how Title IX will apply to student-athlete compensation, whether student-athletes are employees of their institutions, and limits on student-athlete eligibility, among others.

The Jackson Lewis Education & Collegiate Sports Group will continue to monitor developments in implementation, enforcement, and challenges to these new standards in collegiate sports. Please feel free to reach out to any member of the Education & Collegiate Sports Group with questions.

On February 18, 2025, National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel William Cowen rescinded a September 2021 memorandum in which former Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo declared college athletes should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act. This was one of many memoranda he rescinded that had been issued by his Biden-administration predecessor.

Acting General Counsel Cowen’s withdrawal of the memorandum is the latest in a series of defeats for pro-employee advocates who had hoped to designate collegiate student-athletes as “employees” under the Act.

The first was the December 2024 withdrawal of an unfair labor practice charge filed by the National College Players Association (NCPA) against the NCAA, the Pac-12 Conference, and a private university in the Los Angeles area. The NCPA’s executive director stated the charge had been withdrawn considering the rise of “name, image, and likeness” (NIL) payments to players, as well as the shift in attitude on the subject under the new Trump Administration.

The second blow to proponents of the concept that student-athletes be deemed “employees” was the January 2025 decision by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 560 to withdraw its petition to represent an Ivy League university’s men’s basketball players. In February 2024, a Regional Director for the Board took the historic step of determining that the university’s men’s basketball players should be considered employees under the Act. The case was filed in September 2023 after all 15 members of the men’s basketball team signed a petition to join Local 560 of the SEIU. At the time, the Regional Director determined the university’s level of control over the players was sufficient to qualify the players as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act. The Board found that traditional “team” activities, including the university’s ability to control the players’ academic schedules and the team’s regimented schedules for home and away games, weighed heavily in favor of an employment relationship. With the petition withdrawn for now, the university’s basketball players will remain non-unionized.

Given these developments, the window for student-athletes being deemed employees under the Act appears to be closed for the time being. With the uncertainty surrounding NIL and other issues around collegiate athletics, this area of law will need to be monitored for additional developments. In the interim, private collegiate institutions should be aware that they may face charges or petitions filed with the Board. Such filings must be treated seriously in light of the Regional Director decision discussed above.

Jackson Lewis’ Education and Collegiate Sports Group is available to assist universities, conferences, and other stakeholders in dealing with matters before the Board or otherwise involving the appropriate classification of student-athletes.

Takeaways

  • President Trump signed executive order “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports,” barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports and citing fairness, safety, and privacy concerns. Schools that do not comply with the new federal policy risk losing federal funding under Title IX enforcement.
  • In response, the NCAA immediately revised its transgender participation policy, restricting competition in women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth.
  • Legal challenges are expected, as some states and advocacy groups argue the policy is discriminatory and violates previous Title IX interpretations.

Background

On Feb. 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which prohibits transgender women from participating in female athletic categories at federally funded educational institutions. The order also directed the State Department to demand changes within the International Olympic Committee. The Committee has left eligibility rules up to the global federations that govern different sports.

The Trump Administration has made a push to redefine sex-based legal protections under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, emphasizing biological sex as the deciding factor for athletic eligibility. Previously, on Jan. 20, 2025, the Administration issued an executive order declaring the federal government would recognize only two sexes, male and female, for all legal and regulatory purposes.

The NCAA has over 530,000 student-athletes, fewer than 10 of whom are transgender, according to a statement the NCAA’s president, Charlie Baker had provided to a Senate panel in December. In January, Baker called for greater legal clarity on the issue from regulators.

Finding that clarity in the form of the new executive order, in response, the NCAA Board of Governors voted to amend its transgender participation policy the day after Trump’s executive order was issued.

The new policy states that eligibility for NCAA women’s sports is now strictly limited to athletes assigned female at birth. Transgender men (those assigned female at birth but who have begun a medical transition) may still participate in men’s sports without restriction. However, an athlete taking testosterone for gender transition may only practice with a women’s team and is prohibited from competing in official NCAA-sanctioned events. If a team allows an ineligible athlete to compete, the entire team will be disqualified from NCAA championships.

Legal and Institutional Challenges

The executive order immediately ignited controversy as several states and legal groups vowed to challenge the order.

Pushback is expected, particularly in states like California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York, where laws expressly protect transgender rights. Schools in these states now face a dilemma: Whether to comply with federal regulations or uphold state laws that recognize gender identity protections for student-athletes. Schools in these states may risk severe financial consequences if they refuse to comply with the new federal mandate, potentially losing millions in federal education funding.

More than two dozen states already bar transgender athletes from participating in school sports, whether in K-12 schools or at the collegiate level. In January, the House passed a bill barring transgender women and girls from sports programs for female students nationwide (the bill is not likely to pass in the Senate).

What Comes Next?

Some key questions remain:

  • Will federal courts uphold or strike down the new Title IX interpretation?
  • How will schools in certain states navigate the conflict between the executive order and new NCAA policy and state laws?

If an institution or athletic conference requires guidance or assistance in dealing with these evolving and sensitive issues, they should contact the Higher Education & Collegiate Sports practice group at Jackson Lewis.