A federal judge dismissed the Mountain West Conference from Brooke Slusser’s Title IX lawsuit but kept the case alive against the California State University system, and punted the key question to the Supreme Court.
Colorado District Judge Kato Crews ruled Tuesday that Title IX damages claims against the CSU Board will wait until the high court decides B.P.J. v. West Virginia, the landmark case on whether biological sex governs women’s sports. That decision is expected in June.
The ruling means the heart of the SJSU volleyball scandal, whether a university violates Title IX by placing a biological male on a women’s team, remains unresolved. And the stakes keep climbing.
Crews threw out all claims against the Mountain West Conference and its commissioner. But he refused to kill the case against CSU, which oversees San Jose State. As Fox News Digital reported, the judge wrote:
“What remains of the Amended Complaint is Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages against the CSU Board… So the Court defers ruling on the Title IX damages claims until after the Supreme Court has issued its ruling in B.P.J.”
He also denied CSU’s motion to strike class allegations. That matters. If the case proceeds as a class action, the ruling could affect female athletes far beyond one volleyball team.
Crews was appointed by former President Joe Biden in January 2024. He previously denied Slusser’s request for a preliminary injunction in November 2024, allowing trans athlete Blaire Fleming to keep playing in the Mountain West tournament. SJSU reached the conference final before losing to Colorado State, after Boise State forfeited rather than face Fleming’s team in the semifinal.
Bill Bock, Slusser’s attorney with the Independent Council on Women’s Sports, told Fox News Digital he expects the Supreme Court to settle the question in favor of biological sex. He said:
“I believe that the court is going to find that Title IX operates on the basis of biological sex, without regard to an assumed or professed gender, and so just like the congress and the members of congress that passed Title IX in 1972, allowed this specifically provided for in the regulations that there had to be separate men’s and women’s teams based on biological sex, I think the court is going to see that is the original meaning of the statute and apply it in that way, and I think it’s going to be a big win in women’s sports.”
Bock also signaled a likely appeal of the Mountain West dismissal, calling it flawed:
“There’s a real flaw in the dismissal of the Mountain West conference. I think an appeal is very likely.”
He framed his disagreement with Judge Crews in measured terms, saying he “simply” disagrees with the judge “regarding what the law is, and particularly with respect to Title IX.”
Slusser, a former SJSU co-captain, alleges she was forced to share bedrooms and changing spaces with Fleming for a whole season, without being told Fleming was biologically male. She said the fallout wrecked her health:
Slusser spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court on Jan. 13 while oral arguments in B.P.J. took place inside.
President Donald Trump’s Department of Education determined in January that SJSU violated Title IX. The findings were damning. The department stated that a female athlete discovered the trans student allegedly conspired to have a member of an opposing team spike her in the face during a match:
“SJSU did not investigate the conspiracy, but later subjected the female athlete to a Title IX complaint for ‘misgendering’ the male athlete in online videos and interviews.”
The department gave SJSU an ultimatum: agree to a series of resolutions or face referral to the Department of Justice.
Rather than comply, SJSU and the CSU system sued the federal government. As the New York Post reported, SJSU President Cynthia Teniente-Matson said, “Because we believe OCR’s findings aren’t grounded in the facts or the law, SJSU and the CSU filed a lawsuit today against the federal government to challenge those findings and prevent the federal government from taking punitive action against the university, including the potential withholding of critical federal funding.”
Slusser’s reaction was blunt: “It makes me so mad that SJSU still refuses to see that everything they did is wrong. I think they’re just too scared to admit it and face the repercussions of their actions!”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon escalated the standoff. Fox News reported that McMahon warned SJSU and CSU they had 10 days to reach an agreement or risk suspension or termination of federal funding and possible DOJ referral. She wrote on X: “Protecting women’s sports is nonnegotiable. After we found SJSU in violation of Title IX, they refused to negotiate a resolution. SJSU, you have ten days to cease your discriminatory practices.”
The CSU system, meanwhile, declared victory on the parts of the ruling that went its way. Its statement read: “CSU is pleased with the court’s ruling. SJSU has complied with Title IX and all applicable law, and it will continue to do so.”
That claim sits awkwardly next to a federal finding that SJSU violated the very statute it says it followed.
The conference celebrated its dismissal. Its statement said: “We appreciate the Court’s thorough review of the allegations. We are pleased the Court granted the Mountain West’s and Commissioner Nevarez’s motions to dismiss in their entirety. We remain focused on supporting our member institutions and student-athletes.”
SJSU Athletic Director Jeff Konya told Fox News Digital in a July interview that he stood by the school’s handling of Fleming’s situation:
“I think everybody acted in the best possible way they could, given the circumstances.”
The female athletes forced to compete against, and room with, a biological male might disagree.
Everything now hinges on the Supreme Court. If the justices rule that Title IX protects women on the basis of biological sex, Slusser’s remaining claims against CSU gain enormous legal force. If they don’t, the statute that was written to protect women in 1972 will have been hollowed out by the very institutions that claim to champion equality.
The pattern is clear: a university that punished a female athlete for speaking up, a conference that looked the other way, and a Biden-appointed judge who let it play out on the court before letting the Supreme Court clean up the mess.
When institutions meant to protect women instead silence them, the law is the last line of defense. In June, we’ll find out if it still holds.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.