[Campion]

Article is really confusing and poorly written. An NY post article explains it better. The sorority chapter voted to admit the fake "woman". Six of the members were upset by this and said the fake "woman" was acting in a sexually provocative manner, etc. They sued to have the fake "woman" expelled.

The court ruled that it had no right to interfere in the relationship between the chapter and the six complaining members, since there was no evidence that the sorority's bylaws prohibited fake "women" from being admitted (so there was no applicable contract language to breach).

Can't really find much fault with a court ruling that it had no standing to intervene in the relationship between a private organization and some of its members. Judicial restraint: it's a good thing.

[fightin kentuckian]

But the court did intervene when it dismissed the definition of woman.

The word woman IS the definition of a woman. However the court said that the sorority rules didn’t define a woman. The judge just defined a woman to be man or woman unless specifically designated by the sorority rules.