LINCOLN, Neb. - The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a petition on the Nov. 3 ballot that would establish a state constitutional amendment preventing biological males from competing on female school and college sports teams.
Nebraska resident Cara Ullman sought an injunction to keep the “Fairness for Girls” proposal off the ballot, arguing the petition’s “object statement” didn’t comply with state law requiring an explanation of the “legal effect of the filing of the petition and the object sought be secured.” Among other things, she said, the object statement didn’t state it would establish rules based on biological sex and prevent trans females from competing on female-only teams.
The state high court disagreed, saying the object statement doesn’t need the explicit detail Ullman demanded.
“The Initiative establishes constitutional limits on male participation in female-designated sports,” the court ruled, in an Oct. 16 opinion by Justice Derek R. Vaughn. “A potential signer interested in learning exactly how the Initiative sought to achieve this purpose need only flip over the page to read the proposed Initiative’s full text.”
The Fairness for Girls petition was filed in February 2026 with an “object statement” saying they were seeking an amendment “to establish constitutional protections for sex-separate athletics to ensure equal access to athletic opportunities for females.” The amendment would require schools to identify sports programs as exclusively male, female or coed.
In August, the Secretary of State certified the amendment for placement on the Nov. 3 ballot. The next month, Ullman sued, claiming the object statement failed to comply with Nebraska law. The petition’s backers failed to explain the initiative would impose requirements based on biological sex, prevent male students from participating on female teams, didn’t name all the types of schools and teams affected and doesn’t require schools to offer female teams, she argued.
Lancaster County judge Lori A. Maret dismissed the complaint on Sept. 8, ruling the object statement met legal requirements and that a strict interpretation of the law would “unduly restrict the power of the initiative.”
Ullman appealed, but the Nebraska Supreme affirmed the trial court’s decision.
“The language ‘legal effect of the filing of the petition’… does not require an initiative’s object statement to set forth every consequence that would result from the initiative measure should it be adopted by voters,” the court said. The statement only needs to inform signers whether the legal effect is a referendum, enactment of law or constitutional amendment.
Other states are more specific, the court said. Arizona requires petitions to contain a description of the principal provisions of the proposed measure, along with a disclaimer that the description “may not include every provision contained in the measure,” the court said. But in Nebraska, the statement only must “substantially” comply with the law’s requirements, the court concluded.
Gutman Law Group represented the opponents of the petition. La Grone Slama represented the petition sponsors, while Alliance Defending Freedom filed a brief in support of them.
