Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Ivy League have filed motions to dismiss a high-profile lawsuit alleging that their actions supporting transgender swimmer Lia Thomas violated Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding.
In documents submitted Monday, all three institutions challenged the legal basis of the plaintiffs’ claims, which center on Thomas’s participation in the Ivy League Championships and her visibility as a transgender athlete. The plaintiffs, reportedly former and current collegiate swimmers, argued that the schools’ conduct amounted to discrimination and unequal treatment under Title IX.
Harvard’s motion to dismiss described the claims as “confounding,” pointing out that the plaintiffs “do not even purport to be injured by the reading of the statement” they allege is discriminatory. The university stated it acted in full compliance with Title IX, emphasizing that it was upholding the spirit and letter of the law, not violating it.
“Harvard had every reason to believe not only that it was not violating Title IX, but that it was doing what that law required of it,” the motion said.
The plaintiffs also alleged that Harvard worked with the Ivy League to give Thomas increased media visibility, which they argue created an unfair environment. In response, Harvard rejected this claim as baseless, stating there is no evidence that Thomas’s public profile caused any tangible harm.
“It is common for institutions to discuss particular athletes with the media to the exclusion of others, and there is no basis for a claim that it is somehow a Title IX violation to do so,” the motion added.
Penn, where Thomas competed during her NCAA career, also filed a motion to dismiss, defending its decision to allow her participation in the women’s championships in accordance with NCAA guidelines. The university noted that its treatment of transgender athletes, regardless of gender, complied with regulations governing equal opportunity.
“Any suggestion that allowing one transgender woman to use the women’s locker room (or one transgender man to use the men’s locker room, which was also permitted) somehow violates this factor, or amounts to an equal treatment claim, is specious,” Penn wrote in its filing.
Meanwhile, the Ivy League argued that it is not subject to Title IX in this case, as the conference itself does not receive federal funding. Their motion emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to establish legal grounds for discrimination, either from a procedural or constitutional standpoint.
For many in the transgender community and their allies, this case represents yet another flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over trans inclusion in sports. The defendants’ legal arguments offer a pointed rebuttal to claims that trans athletes inherently disadvantage others and frame their actions as consistent with both NCAA policy and evolving interpretations of fairness and equality.
While the legal process continues, these filings signal the schools’ firm stance in support of inclusive athletic participation, an issue that remains deeply personal for countless transgender individuals and families navigating a shifting landscape of rights, recognition, and respect.
