Sadie Schreiner, a two-time NCAA All-American and one of Rochester Institute of Technology’s most accomplished sprinters, who holds program marks and conference titles in the 200 and 400 meters, has sued RPI.
She placed third in the 200 (24.12) and eighth in the 400 (56.60) at the NCAA Division III Outdoor Championships and claimed Liberty League and Atlantic Region honors while setting RIT program bests.
Her competitive resume is why the exclusions have drawn attention. In April 2025, Schreiner claims that Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute refused to allow her to participate in an on-campus “Under the Lights” meet.
This is when she had registered and paid; the complaint alleges that RPI cited fear of violating a federal executive order as its reason for the ban.
Schreiner filed a lawsuit against RPI, claiming the school’s actions violated New York’s human rights protections for gender identity.
The Situation Escalated
The controversy escalated in May 2025 at Princeton’s Larry Ellis Invitational when Schreiner entered the meet as an unattached athlete.
According to her complaint, her name was removed from the heat sheet about 15 minutes before the women’s 200-meter race, and a meet official indicated her transgender status as the reason.
Schreiner sued Princeton in July 2025, alleging discrimination under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and seeking relief for what she calls a humiliating, public exclusion.
Schreiner has since broadened legal action, filing suits that n
ame other institutions and the NCAA itself after being denied starts at additional events.
Those complaints argue that schools and governing bodies have treated her differently because of her gender identity and seek injunctions, damages, and clearer policy direction so she and athletes like her can compete on equal terms.
There is no final court ruling yet. The cases are active and will test how state anti-discrimination laws interact with athletic-eligibility rules and recent federal policy changes.
While many people have come in support of the transgender athlete, few have made harsh comments, suggesting someone born a biological male shouldn’t compete against women.
Tild Wilkinson wrote, “All of this, trans women on HRT are actually at a disadvantage to cis women, HRT aftertaste our bodies’ ability to perform massively, and we have no advantage whatsoever. Listen to the facts and science not political and religious dogma.”
On the other hand, other comments opposed, “Glad this is being stopped! We have to protect women from this”, “The saddest part about this is, how much you’re putting back the entire Trans community by insisting you compete against women. The growing hatred is because of people like you. People have been accepting. I was accepting, until I realize that you actually respect nobody but yourself”, etc.
Outcomes could range from settlements and injunctions restoring immediate race access to rulings that force wider policy changes or, alternatively, upholding stricter eligibility standards that limit transgender women’s participation.
Either way, judges will shape how colleges and the NCAA balance fairness, safety, and legal obligations.
For Schreiner, the fight is straightforward: she wants to run. For the sport, the litigation promises to provide precedent and clearer answers about who is eligible to compete in women’s track at the collegiate and open levels.
