# Female Athletes United v. Ellison *Eighth Circuit decision on the scope of Title IX's private right of action (No. 25-2899, 2026)* **Female Athletes United v. Ellison**, No. 25-2899, is a federal appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It arose from claims under [[Title IX]] concerning Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) policy.[^1] Female Athletes United (FAU) appealed after the district court denied its request for a preliminary injunction. On April 15, 2026, a three-judge panel affirmed that denial.[^1] The panel held that FAU had standing to sue.[^2] It also held that Title IX supplies a private right of action only for intentional sex discrimination. FAU's ineffective-accommodation and unequal-treatment claims "sound in disparate impact," the panel said, and no private right of action exists for such claims.[^3][^4] The panel added that executive guidance and agency findings "do not reflect settled law."[^5] It described whether Title IX permits transgender participation as something that "remains an open question of law."[^5] ## Parties and instrument FAU is the appellant and brought the appeal in the Eighth Circuit.[^1] The defendant appears in the caption as Ellison; the record does not identify the defendant further. The record lists Title IX and MSHSL policy as the instruments at issue.[^1] ## Procedural history - **District court:** The district court denied FAU's motion for a preliminary injunction. The pack does not give the date of that ruling.[^1] - **2025:** The appeal was docketed in the Eighth Circuit as No. 25-2899, and the case record gives 2025 as its filing year. The merged master cites the case as "filed Apr. 15, 2026," which matches the date of the opinion.[^1] - **April 15, 2026:** Judge Gruender wrote the panel's opinion, and Judges Erickson and Grasz joined it. The panel affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction.[^1] ## Claims FAU's claims included ineffective-accommodation and unequal-treatment theories under Title IX.[^4] On standing, the panel pointed to an FAU member identified as "Athlete 1," who faced a scheduled game against the transgender athlete.[^2] On the merits, the panel held that both theories "sound in disparate impact" and that Title IX gives private plaintiffs no right of action for them.[^4] At argument, FAU conceded the point: "we don't contest that there is no disparate impact claim under Title IX."[^4] ## Substrate The panel decided the scope of the private right of action by applying [[Alexander v. Sandoval]], 532 U.S. 275 (2001), through [[Cannon v. University of Chicago]], 441 U.S. 677 (1979).[^3] On that basis it held that the private right of action under Title IX reaches only intentional sex discrimination.[^3] ## Related matters The panel noted two pending cases on whether Title IX permits transgender participation, an issue it called an open question of law. They are *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, No. 24-43, and [[Little v. Hecox]], No. 24-38.[^5] ## Notes [^1]: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (Apr. 15, 2026) — caption and docket; panel of Gruender (author), Erickson and Grasz; affirmance of the district court's denial of FAU's preliminary injunction. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04/252899P.pdf [^2]: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (Apr. 15, 2026) — holding that FAU had standing through member "Athlete 1." https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04/252899P.pdf [^3]: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (Apr. 15, 2026) — holding that Title IX's private right of action covers only intentional sex discrimination, applying *Alexander v. Sandoval* through *Cannon v. University of Chicago*. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04/252899P.pdf [^4]: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (Apr. 15, 2026) — holding that the ineffective-accommodation and unequal-treatment claims sound in disparate impact, with no private right of action; FAU's concession at argument. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04/252899P.pdf [^5]: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (Apr. 15, 2026) — statement that executive guidance and agency findings do not reflect settled law; transgender participation an open question; pending *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, No. 24-43, and *Little v. Hecox*, No. 24-38. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04/252899P.pdf