National law firms argue Sioux Falls' Title IX case will have broad impacts beyond city
Gymnastics supporters want an amicus brief filed Dec. 21 by the Pacific Legal Foundation and American Sports Council dismissed, according to an objection document recently submitted to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The gymnastics supporters argued Jan. 2 that PLF and ASC’s assertions are based outside the record on appeal, that the groups misread the South Dakota court’s opinion and that the two legal groups had a flawed and cursory summary of the district court’s entire opinion and the evidence presented to it.
But ASC and PLF argued in a new document filed Monday that their brief is "desirable and relevant to the disposition of this case."
The Sioux Falls School District’s counsel consented to the filing of the proposed amicus brief while the plaintiffs who supported the gymnastics team did not.
More: Legal groups have filed an amicus brief in Sioux Falls Title IX lawsuit. What that means:
The brief stems from a lawsuit and Title IX complaint the school district is facing for cutting its gymnastics program from the budget and sports offerings this year. While the gymnastics season has continued this school year because of a preliminary injunction from a South Dakota judge, the district is waiting for a ruling after seeking to appeal that decision in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
PLF is a national public interest law firm focused on fighting government overreach and abuse, while ASC is "the leading organization working for reform of Title IX regulations that have led to the widespread elimination of opportunities for male athletes," according to its website.
In the two legal groups’ brief, they asked the appeals court not affirm the South Dakota court’s decision and stated that their concern lies in the district court’s holding that a lack of substantial proportionality between the ratio of male and female student-athletes in a school district compared with the ratio of male and female students enrolled in the district is sufficient to warrant a Title IX violation.
But in the objection document filed Jan. 2, the gymnasts state they presented evidence demonstrating a years-long effort by the district to suppress or hinder participation in girls’ gymnastics, and there was no evidence of the district taking similar efforts to impede a boys’ sport or dampen existing interest from male athletes.
More: Sioux Falls' school board continues to dodge questions about the cap on boys' sports
Since the brief also touches on topics not originally in the lawsuit or appeal, such as the district’s recent cap of boys’ sports participation, the gymnasts argue their request for leave shouldn’t be granted.
The gymnasts also state the district court didn’t require the district to achieve substantial proportionality in Title IX or require the district to limit opportunities for male athletes.
In the reply in support of the motion for leave to file the amicus brief filed Monday, ASC and PLF argued that the issues raised in the appeal "cannot be viewed in a vacuum."
"This Court's resolution of this case will affect students and educational institutions beyond Sioux Falls," the two legal organizations wrote.
They added that including an example showing the consequences of the district court's interpretation of Title IX isn't tantamount to introducing evidence beyond the record sufficient to deny the motion for leave.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Sioux Falls gymnasts object to national attorneys in Title IX case
