The Trump administration has initiated a lawsuit against California regarding the state’s policy that permits transgender athletes to participate in sports teams aligning with their gender identity.
This legal action raises concerns over the potential violation of federal civil rights law, asserting that the state discriminates against female athletes.
The lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California, stating that California is non-compliant with Title IX, a federal law established in 1972 that seeks to eliminate sex-based discrimination within any education program or activity receiving federal funding.
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon emphasized that Title IX was designed to protect the rights of women and girls, arguing that current policies undermine their achievements in athletics.
“The Justice Department will not stand for policies that deprive girls of their hard-earned athletic trophies,” Dhillon stated, emphasizing the need to protect young women’s rights in competitive sports, scholarships, and awards from what she referred to as “woke gender ideology.”
The lawsuit targets both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation, responsible for overseeing high school sports.
In response, the state Department of Education has refrained from commenting on the active litigation, while its general counsel previously rejected a federal order from the U.S. Office for Civil Rights that aimed to change state practices and address past actions with a compliance agreement.
“The California Department of Education … respectfully disagrees with [Office for Civil Rights] analysis and it will not sign the proposed resolution agreement,” General Counsel Len Garfinkel stated in a brief communication.
While the enforcement action does not directly name Governor Gavin Newsom, his office provided a reaction, insisting that the sports organization and the state Department of Education are adhering to state law passed in 2013.
“No court has adopted the interpretation of Title IX advanced by the federal government,” said Elana Ross, a spokesperson for the Governor’s office, asserting that California complies with the law.
California’s education policy explicitly allows students to participate in athletics according to their gender identity, which stands in conflict with the federal lawsuit’s claim that federal law prevails.
The stakes are high, as the Trump administration claims that California could risk losing $44.3 billion in federal funding allocated for the current year, which includes $3.8 billion that has yet to be disbursed.
A senior official from the U.S. Department of Education emphasized, “Potentially, all federal dollars to California public entities are at risk.”
The lawsuit seeks declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief for purported violations of Title IX, highlighting the substantial funding California receives and the consequences of non-compliance.
The legal battle exemplifies the discrepancies in the interpretation of civil rights law, and the conflict with California had been anticipated to reach the courts given the ongoing disputes with the Trump administration.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office vowed to defend the state’s stance on student civil rights, affirming its commitment to protecting the rights of all students, including those who are transgender.
President Donald Trump has previously threatened to withdraw federal aid from California due to various policy issues, such as state programs focusing on racial diversity and immigration protections.
The matter of transgender athletes is not confined to California, as similar cases are being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to address whether federal law prevents transgender girls from competing in women’s sports.
Previous laws, like West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, have encountered challenges in courts deeming them discriminatory.
In an appeal supported by multiple Republican-led states, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey expressed the belief that biological males should not compete in girls’ sports.
Idaho has also pursued legal action after its legislation faced opposition from the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, and the Supreme Court plans to hear these cases together.
LGBTQ+ advocates criticize the Trump administration for purportedly politicizing the issue of transgender athletes, noting the small number of transgender students in athletics relative to the larger population of female athletes.
Advocates argue that the benefits of sports participation, both physically and mentally, have been overlooked and that concerns regarding locker room dynamics can be managed with sensitivity.
Kristi Hirst, a co-founder of Our Schools USA, described the lawsuit as a tactic to distract from the administration’s other policy failures while targeting a vulnerable demographic for political gain.
In contrast, proponents of the lawsuit, such as Sonja Shaw, president of the Chino Valley Unified Board of Education, assert they are defending the integrity of girls’ sports.
Shaw remarked, “This isn’t just policy failure — it’s a civil rights crisis,” emphasizing that children should not be confused about their gender identity.
The lawsuit references specific instances of transgender athletes’ involvement in competitive sports, claiming outcomes were unfair to female competitors.
For example, the case mentions “Student 2,” a male student competing in various track and field and cross-country events against female athletes, achieving notable successes in competitions.
In September 2023, Student 2 won the large-school sophomore girls’ three-mile-run finals at the Cool Breeze Invitational, with his time ranking 115th among male competitors.
The lawsuit also asserts that having transgender athletes present in locker rooms has created discomfort for scores of girls and women.
Furthermore, the filing indicates that students have been unjustly silenced when opposing California’s regulations on transgender participation in female sports.
In light of concerns around fairness in competitions, the CIF recently implemented a policy attempting to address the recognition of achievements among female athletes who might have been at a disadvantage due to transgender competitors.
Under this new initiative, an athlete who would have received an award if a transgender participant had not competed is granted the same recognition.
However, this policy has not been applied retroactively to previous competitions and does not account for team sports, where the impact of an individual athlete is harder to quantify.
The Trump administration interprets this new CIF policy as an acknowledgment of the advantages that transgender males have over biological females in the competitive arena.
The upcoming legal proceedings not only highlight tensions between federal and state interpretations of civil rights law but also signal an intensified national discourse surrounding transgender rights in sports.
image source from：latimes
