The Supreme Court’s Tuesday decisions on trans athletes in women's sports did not award damages to any female athletes impacted.But for women suing the NCAA, universities and athletic conferences over past transgender-athlete policies, the ruling may prove to be an important turning point.Riley Gaines' lawsuit against the NCAA and Brooke Slusser's lawsuit against San Jose State and the Mountain West Conference each cases seek damages for female athletes who say they lost equal opportunities, privacy, safety or fair competition under policies that allowed transgender-identifying male athletes to compete in women’s sports.SUPREME COURT MAKES RULING ON TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN'S SPORTSBill Bock, an attorney leading both cases for the Independent Council on Women's Sports (ICONS), said the Supreme Court ruling is "huge" because it "absolutely shredded" the reasoning used by lower courts and athletic bodies that had argued Title IX required schools to allow biological males who identify as female to compete in women’s sports.All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that Title IX and its regulations allow federally funded schools and states to separate athletic teams based on biological sex and to exclude transgender females from participating on girls' and women's teams.Bock said that because of that sentiment by all nine justices, the NCAA, Mountain West and the institutions his side is suing now "had no basis for what they did to women.""In all of their arguments, they said, 'We had to, we had to do this because Title IX required us to do this,'" Bock told Fox News Digital. "The NCAA's first defense is, 'Well, Title IX doesn't apply to us.' The second defense is, 'Well, we had to do it because Title IX required us to.' They're wrong on both counts."Bock said he will account for the ruling when filing future briefs in the lawsuits."We'll be submitting a brief relatively soon in the Mountain West case, that will be required. In the Georgia case, we're waiting for the judge's ruling on the first question, which is whether Title IX applies to the NCAA."LAWYERS FIGHTING SJSU OVER VOLLEYBALL SCANDAL RESPOND TO FEDERAL TITLE IX PROBE FINDINGSHe described the NCAA’s position as twofold: "Title IX doesn’t apply to us" and "we had to do it because Title IX required us to.""They’re wrong on both counts," Bock said.For Gaines' lawsuit, current and former female athletes sued the NCAA and others over the 2022 NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships, where former UPenn trans swimmer Lia Thomas competed in women’s events. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, along with other relief, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of women who competed at those championships.That case has already been narrowed. A federal judge dismissed claims against Georgia defendants and Georgia Tech Athletic Association, finding that the challenged policy decisions came from the NCAA. What remains are Title IX claims against the NCAA, and the next key question is whether the NCAA is covered by Title IX because of alleged federal funding ties, including a concussion-research partnership with the Department of Defense.For Slusser's lawsuit, female volleyball players sued over San Jose State and Mountain West policies tied to a transgender player on San Jose State’s women’s volleyball team. A federal judge dismissed the Mountain West defendants and most claims, but Bock said he will appeal that decision. The judge left pending Title IX damages claims against the California State University Board, which oversees SJSU, and specifically delayed ruling on those damages claims until after the Supreme Court decided B.P.J.That delay now looks significant.In March, the federal judge, S. Kato Crews, wrote that his earlier preliminary-injunction ruling had relied in part on Bostock v. Clayton County, the 2020 Supreme Court employment case involving gay and transgender workers. He said that reading of Bostock was "now called into question and might be upended" by the Supreme Court’s women’s-sports case.The Supreme Court has now said Bostock does not control the Title IX sports issue. The majority said Title VII employment law and Title IX athletics are "vastly different" contexts, and that Title IX authorizes separate men’s and women’s teams.Former University of Arizona swimming star Marshi Smith, co-founder of ICONS, said the Supreme Court ruling was a "huge battle won," but not the end of the fight."We’re lacking accountability still," Smith said, pointing to women and girls who say they lost "titles, national championships, even up to world championships, records, roster spots, scholarships."CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMThe California State University system provided a response to Fox News Digital in response to Bock's statements. "The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026 decision serves to clarify federal law going forward and the California State University will continue to follow all applicable federal and state laws. San José State complied fully with the law in effect in 2024 and prior. The ruling establishes the legal standard going forward and does not change the law that applied previously. The CSU remains unwavering in its commitment to fostering an inclusive, respectful, and safe environment for all students, faculty, and staff," the statement read. Fox News Digital reached out to the NCAA and the Mountain West Conference for comment.Former University of Kentucky swimmer and Gaines' old teammate Kaitlynn Wheeler, a plaintiff in Gaines, said the ruling was "a super validating moment" after female athletes had been "asking for fairness for years.""I think a lot of women, including myself, woke up today feeling an immense amount of hope," Wheeler said.Kaylie Ray, who is involved in the Mountain West case, said the ruling felt "incredibly validating" after athletes in the conference felt their leaders had not protected them."Women do matter," Ray said. "Their spaces do matter. Equality does matter. And their opportunities deserve to be protected."For female athletes seeking damages, the ruling does not guarantee victory. But it does give them a new answer to one of the central defenses they have faced for years: that institutions had no choice.The next stage of the fight will be whether courts treat that answer as enough to hold the NCAA, universities or other athletic bodies financially accountable for past seasons.