ELIZABETH NIBLOCK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; ALA HASSAN, Class Representative v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Articles

All Content

ELIZABETH NIBLOCK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; ALA HASSAN, Class Representative v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jan 20, 2026

Head Comment: SUTTON and MURPHY delivered a separate concurring opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Lori Bullock, BULLOCK LAW PLLC, Des Moines, Iowa, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Bryan H. Beauman, STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Lori Bullock, BULLOCK LAW PLLC, Des Moines, Iowa, Joshua I. Hammack, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Washington, D.C., Jill Zwagerman, NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, PLC, Des Moines, Iowa, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Bryan H. Beauman, Carmine G. Iaccarino, STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, William E. Thro, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Caleb R. Trotter, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, Sacramento, California, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; MURPHY and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Several students sued the University of Kentucky under Title IX, arguing that it failed to provide Division I sports teams for women in three sports: equestrian, field hockey, and lacrosse. After a bench trial, the district court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that enough female students at the University wanted to and had the ability to compete in these sports at the Division I level, as opposed to the existing club team level. Because the district court did not clearly err in making these findings and because the plaintiffs accept the validity of the interpretive guidance on which those findings are premised, we affirm.

Attachments: