A federal district court has ended the remaining Title IX claims in the high-profile women’s-sports suit led by former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines and other female athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. On 28 September 2026 Judge Tiffany R. Johnson (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division) granted the NCAA’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 157) and directed the clerk to enter judgment for the NCAA and close the case (Doc. 196; clerk’s judgment Doc. 197).

“Here, there is no evidence that the NCAA ever received, or could have received, federal funds. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed.” — Order, Gaines v. NCAA, Doc. 196 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2026).
Citizen impact: Title IX liability turns first on whether an entity is a recipient of federal financial assistance. This ruling closes the district-court path against the NCAA on that gatekeeping question without deciding whether the association’s former transgender-eligibility rules were sex discrimination. Female athletes who competed under those rules, member schools that still receive federal aid, and state “Riley Gaines Act”-style statutes sit inside the citizen perimeter. Pair with SCOTUS women’s-sports files already on this site (B.P.J. / West Virginia) — different posture, same sex-based category.

What the court actually decided

After limited discovery ordered in September 2025 on “the sole issue of whether the NCAA is a federal funding recipient,” the court found that the NCAA and the Department of Defense each made separate, independent payments to Indiana University for CARE concussion studies under a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) structure. Federal funds flowed to universities and sub-awardees; the NCAA’s own contribution was private contract funding. Citing NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999), the court held plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed without evidence the NCAA received federal assistance.

Footnote 2 of the order is explicit: because the NCAA was not a federal funding recipient, the court does not address Spending Clause notice arguments — and the ruling does not decide the lawfulness of the former transgender-athlete participation policy on the merits.

What this is not

Do not write “a court upheld male athletes in women’s NCAA sports.” The NCAA’s prior transgender-eligibility policy is described in the order as the background of the suit; that policy has since changed under separate political and associational pressure. This order is a funding-recipient summary judgment, with clerk’s judgment entered and the case closed at district court. Plaintiffs have signaled an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit within the usual notice window — watch the docket, do not invent an appellate outcome.

Contested: Athletes and advocacy groups argue the NCAA functionally benefited from DoD partnership money and should face Title IX; the NCAA argues Congress barred CRADA-style federal funding flows to non-federal partners and that separate IU contracts keep streams distinct. The district court sided with the NCAA on the record after discovery.

Bottom line

Verified primary: Doc. 196 (filed 28 Sep 2026) grants NCAA summary judgment; Doc. 197 clerk’s judgment for NCAA; case closed. Holding is no federal-funds receipt — not a merits sex-discrimination ruling. Watch any Eleventh Circuit notice of appeal.