On August 23, 2026, former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom attended a Chicago Sky game against the Indiana Fever at Wintrust Arena wearing a shirt that read, “WOMAN noun. adult human female.” During the third quarter, Freedom became involved in a verbal confrontation with Sky player Natasha Cloud, and was subsequently removed from the arena. He was later banned from attending Chicago Sky games at Wintrust Arena. On September 3, Freedom filed a federal lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated.[1]
The incident has received attention because of the message on Freedom’s shirt, but the lawsuit raises several broader legal questions. At the center of the case are the First Amendment, the authority of sports organizations to regulate fan conduct, and the terms attached to a ticket.
Does the First Amendment Apply?
The first question is whether the First Amendment applies to Freedom’s removal in the first place. Generally, the First Amendment restricts government action, not private businesses or organizations. The Chicago Sky and the WNBA are private entities, which makes a First Amendment claim against them different from a claim involving the government.[2]
Freedom’s lawsuit also names the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) and the City of Chicago as defendants. MPEA is a municipal corporation created by the Illinois General Assembly that owns Wintrust Arena.[3] The lawsuit brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute commonly used to seek relief for constitutional violations committed under color of state law.[4]
This creates an important issue for the case: whether the government defendants were sufficiently involved in Freedom’s removal and subsequent ban for the First Amendment to apply. The Supreme Court has held that a private entity generally does not become a state actor simply because it operates in a public setting or provides a forum for speech.[5] A Seventh Circuit case involving MPEA also addressed First Amendment restrictions involving property owned by the authority.[6]
The roles of the different defendants could therefore be important to determining whether and to what extent the First Amendment applies to the conduct at issue.
What Authority Does the WNBA Have Over Fans?
The next question is what authority the WNBA and the Sky have to regulate fan behavior. The WNBA Fan Code of Conduct prohibits disruptive behavior, including foul or abusive language and obscene gestures. It also states that obscene or indecent messages on signs or clothing are not permitted. The Code allows penalties including ejection, ticket revocation, and prevention from attending future games.[7]
That makes the circumstances surrounding Freedom’s removal particularly important. Freedom alleges that he was removed because of the message on his shirt. The Sky has disputed that characterization, stating that Freedom was removed because of his conduct during the confrontation with Cloud, rather than because of the message on his shirt.[8]
The distinction matters legally. Removing a fan because of disruptive conduct presents different First Amendment questions from removing a fan because of the viewpoint expressed on his clothing. The litigation will therefore involve questions about the circumstances of the ejection, the reason for the decision, and the roles of the different defendants.
What About the Ticket?
The ticket itself raises another legal issue. The WNBA’s ticket terms describe the ticket as a revocable license. They also state that violations of the ticket terms or WNBA and venue rules can terminate the holder’s rights and authorize the WNBA to withdraw the ticket, refuse admission, or eject the holder.[9]
The ticket terms also contain a binding, individual arbitration provision and class-action waiver for disputes relating to the ticket or the specified game or event.[10] This could raise questions about whether Freedom’s claims must be arbitrated rather than heard in federal court, whether the relevant claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision, and which defendants can enforce it.
Illinois courts have considered arbitration provisions connected to professional sports tickets. In Arbogast v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, the Illinois Appellate Court considered whether a Cubs ticket-related arbitration provision required the plaintiff’s claims to be arbitrated. The court affirmed the denial of the Cubs’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration at that stage of the case.[11] While the facts and ticket terms are different, the case illustrates why the language of a sports ticket can become important when a dispute reaches court.
Ultimately, the lawsuit is about more than what happened during one WNBA game. It raises questions about when constitutional protections apply at sporting events, how leagues and teams can regulate fan conduct, the significance of government ownership of a sports venue, and how ticket agreements can affect a legal dispute. As the case moves forward, these legal questions may help determine how the dispute between Freedom and the Chicago Sky is resolved.
Sources
[1] Freedom v. Chicago Womens Basketball Operations LLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-10686 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 3, 2026); Associated Press reporting on the August 23, 2026 incident.
[2] Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 1, 7 (2019).
[3] Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, “About,” https://www.mpea.com/about/.
[4] 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[5] Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 1, 17 (2019).
[6] Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 150 F.3d 695, 702–03 (7th Cir. 1998).
[7] WNBA, “Fan Code of Conduct,” https://www.wnba.com/fan-code-of-conduct.
[8] Associated Press, reporting on Chicago Sky owner Michael Alter’s response to Freedom’s lawsuit, September 4, 2026.
[9] WNBA, “Ticket Terms and Conditions,” https://www.wnba.com/ticket-terms-of-conditions.
[10] WNBA, “Ticket Terms and Conditions,” Arbitration and Class Action Waiver provision, https://www.wnba.com/ticket-terms-of-conditions.
[11] Arbogast v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 210526.
Leave a Reply