A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.

As RedState previously reported, former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom has been doing a heck of a lot more in recent weeks to defend women's sports from the potential invasion of male players than pretty much any of the players and coaches in the WNBA outside of Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham.

One clever way Freedom has done it is by declaring himself for the 2027 WNBA draft on grounds that all he has to do is "self-identify" to qualify in the eyes of Woke Inc., which just so happens to include many players (and fans) in the WNBA.

Another way he's done it is by appearing courtside for a recent game between the Fever and the Chicago Sky, which was played in the Windy City and which resulted in Freedom being ejected and banned from future Sky home games after Sky player Natasha Cloud attempted an aggressive confrontation with him after a play, which resulted in him standing up and taking roughly two steps forward with his arms outstretched beside him.

Team owner Michael Alter declared Freedom to be a "threat," similar to someone with a gun who had ill intentions, which, along with the ban, did not sit well with Kanter, and he revealed soon thereafter that he was exploring the possibility of a lawsuit.

Recommended
JD Vance Shuts Down Kaitlan Collins After She Asks Cringeworthy Question About Slain Airmen Kyle Becker IDF Wipes Out Hezbollah-IRGC Underground Bunker Complex After Iran’s Latest Empty 'Red Line' streiff

On Thursday, Freedom announced he was proceeding with the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds:

The former Boston Celtics center sued the Chicago Sky, the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority and the City of Chicago, alleging all three entities unjustly had him booted from the Sky vs. Fever game on Aug. 23 at Wintrust Arena.

[...]

“The Chicago Sky; MPEA, through Wintrust Arena Security; and the City of Chicago, by its Police Department, worked together to eject Plaintiff in retaliation for protected expression, and continue to work together to enforce the ongoing, unconstitutional ban of Plaintiff from Wintrust Arena, which is public property owned by MPEA,” Freedom’s lawsuit stated.

Here's what he had to say about it on X:

SEE YOU IN COURT!!! Just filed a federal complaint. 

I’m taking legal action over my ejection from the @chicagosky game while peacefully exercising my First Amendment rights. 

My T-shirt did what the whole @WNBA apparently couldn’t: define a woman. 

No threats. No violence. Just biology. 

And somehow, that required a security escort. 

You don’t have to agree with my speech but you don’t get to silence me for it. 

I will not be intimidated. I will not be silenced. 

I will continue to stand for women and defend free speech.

When I first heard about the lawsuit, something that came to mind was a warning letter written by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to the WNBA in response to other concerning instances where fans who shared Cunningham's and Freedom's views were harassed and told to put shirts on over the shirts they wore that expressed support for women's sports. Here's what the ADF wrote at the time:

While the WNBA and its teams are private entities that are not typically bound by the First Amendment, many of the stadiums where those teams play are owned by public entities and built with public funds. And courts sometimes consider actions by private entities to be “state action” based on the nature of the private-public relationship. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 721–22 (1961). When that happens, the private actors must abide by First Amendment rules and allow speakers to express their views consistent with the nature and purpose of the venue—in this case, a sporting event.

[...]

Censorship like this could also violate some state and local public accommodations laws. Most states and localities have laws that prevent private entities from denying services to individuals based on protected characteristics, such as race, sex, or religion. 

The ADF isn't representing Freedom in this case. A legal team from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) is. But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like the AFPI will be using a similar legal rationale in their argument against those who were sued.

The full complaint can be read here.