# Female Athletes United v. Ellison *Eighth Circuit appeal (No. 25-2899) on whether Title IX supplies a private right of action for disparate-impact claims concerning an MSHSL policy; preliminary-injunction denial affirmed April 15, 2026.* *Female Athletes United v. Ellison* is a private civil case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, docketed as No. 25-2899.[^1] The record lists its instruments as [[Title IX]] and an MSHSL policy. The appeal arose from the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Female Athletes United (FAU).[^1] On April 15, 2026, a panel affirmed that denial in an opinion by Judge Gruender, joined by Judges Erickson and Grasz.[^1] The panel found that FAU had standing. It held that Title IX supplies a private right of action only for intentional sex discrimination, so FAU's disparate-impact claims could not proceed.[^1] FAU lost on the private right of action, not on standing.[^1] ## Parties and instrument The plaintiff and appellant is Female Athletes United. The defendant named in the caption is Ellison.[^1] The case row in the record lists the matter as private civil litigation under Title IX and an MSHSL policy.[^1] ## Procedural history FAU sought a preliminary injunction in the district court, and the district court denied it.[^1] FAU appealed to the Eighth Circuit. The case row records the appeal as filed in 2025, under No. 25-2899.[^1] The validated master gives the date as "filed Apr. 15, 2026," which matches the date the opinion issued. On that date, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial.[^1] ## Claims FAU's member "Athlete 1" faced a scheduled game against the transgender athlete. The court held that this gave FAU standing.[^1] The court then addressed FAU's ineffective-accommodation and unequal-treatment claims. It held that these claims "sound in disparate impact," and that no private right of action exists for such claims.[^1] At argument, FAU conceded the point. Counsel stated: "we don't contest that there is no disparate impact claim under Title IX."[^1] ## Substrate To fix the scope of the private right of action under Title IX, the panel applied *[[Alexander v. Sandoval]]*, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), through *[[Cannon v. University of Chicago]]*, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).[^1] On that basis the court limited the private remedy to intentional sex discrimination.[^1] ## Related matters The panel stated that executive guidance and agency findings "do not reflect settled law."[^1] It also stated that whether Title IX permits transgender participation "remains an open question of law."[^1] In making that statement, the panel noted two cases pending at the time: *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, No. 24-43, and *[[Little v. Hecox]]*, No. 24-38.[^1] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899, opinion (Apr. 15, 2026) — affirms denial of preliminary injunction; panel Gruender, Erickson, Grasz; holds FAU had standing but Title IX supplies a private right of action only for intentional discrimination; applies *Alexander v. Sandoval* through *Cannon v. University of Chicago*; notes pending *West Virginia v. B.P.J.* and *Little v. Hecox*. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04/252899P.pdf