The Nebraska Supreme Court has agreed to expedite a high-stakes legal challenge questioning whether a proposed constitutional amendment restricting participation in school sports should remain valid for the upcoming statewide vote. Under a swift scheduling directive, the state's highest judicial body will hear oral arguments at the end of the month to resolve the contested ballot initiative.
Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke formally authorized a one-page order setting the argument date for Sept. 30. The decision ensures that the justices will scrutinize the measure following an earlier lower-court dismissal, setting up an accelerated timetable as election deadlines rapidly converge on state officials and voters.
The high court’s intervention comes at a critical juncture in the election administration calendar. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen faces a statutory deadline to certify the official Nov. 3 general election ballot. Because of that fast-approaching benchmark, the sports-related initiative will physically remain printed on election ballots regardless of the litigation's immediate posture.
Election administrators must also comply with federal and state timelines regarding absentee voters, with the initial wave of certified general election ballots mandated to be distributed to military personnel and overseas residents by Sept. 18. Consequently, the primary objective of the expedited Supreme Court review is to determine whether any votes cast for or against the initiative will be legally counted or ultimately invalidated.
The lawsuit was initiated by Cara Ullman, a registered voter residing in Lincoln. Ullman has challenged the procedural legitimacy of the petition campaign, known publicly as the "Fairness for Girls" initiative, alleging that the initiative’s organizers utilized legally deficient language during their statewide signature-gathering drive.
At the heart of Ullman's complaint is the petition’s "object statement," a summary intended to inform prospective signers about the core purpose and reach of the proposed constitutional amendment. Ullman asserted in her pleadings that the petition summary lacked essential context and critical specifics, which led her to sign the document without possessing a complete understanding of its ultimate legal effects.
The case previously moved before Lancaster County District Judge Lori Maret after the state Supreme Court initially declined on Sept. 1 to take up the matter directly. Ullman then refiled her formal legal challenge in the district court, seeking an immediate ruling to prevent the measure from advancing toward the ballot.
Judge Maret ruled against Ullman on all counts, dismissing every legal argument presented by the challenger's counsel. In evaluating the adequacy of the petition text, Maret observed that while the disputed summary was unquestionably brief, state election statutes solely demand that an object statement be concise rather than comprehensively exhaustive.
Following that district court defeat, Ullman escalated the dispute back to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reversed its earlier posture by agreeing to conduct expedited oral arguments. Under the procedural structure laid out by the court, each side will be granted 10 minutes of oral argument time, with aligned participating parties required to divide their allotted minutes.
The high court also established a condensed briefing schedule to ensure all legal filings are submitted before the Sept. 30 hearing. Ullman’s legal representation must file their opening brief by Sept. 15, while counsel representing the Secretary of State and the ballot campaign must submit their response briefs by Sept. 22. Any final reply brief on behalf of the challenger is due on Sept. 25.
The ballot measure is sponsored by a prominent group of conservative figures, including University of Nebraska Regent Rob Schafer, former state Sen. Julie Slama of Dunbar, and Elizabeth Nunnally, a representative of the Nebraska Family Alliance. The coalition spearheaded the signature drive to elevate existing statutory restrictions into the state’s foundational legal document.
If ratified by voters, the amendment would permanently enshrine core components of a state law enacted in 2025. That statute mandates that all public K-12 school districts, state colleges, and universities classify their athletic offerings and competitive sports teams specifically as male, female, or coeducational. The mandate also extends to private educational institutions whenever they compete against public school teams.
Under the framework of the measure, male student-athletes would be explicitly prohibited from participating on any athletic rosters designated exclusively for female competitors. Proponents have argued that the constitutional amendment is essential to safeguard competitive fairness and protect athletic opportunities dedicated to women and girls across the state.
Notably, the proposed language of the constitutional amendment does not embed a new definition of "sex" directly within the text of the Nebraska Constitution. Instead, the initiative relies upon existing state statutory definitions established under the 2025 law, which determines an individual’s sex according to whether they biologically produce, transport, and utilize either sperm or eggs for reproductive fertilization, accounting for congenital variations.
With early voting and absentee distribution underway, the forthcoming decision by the state Supreme Court will determine whether the contentious educational measure becomes an enforceable part of Nebraska's constitution or gets struck down after the ballots are already cast.
(0)