The Trump Administration cannot pull funding from California schools over trans-inclusive sports policies, U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia Valenzuela ruled on Aug. 31.
Earlier this summer, the Department of Justice sued the state and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversees the area’s high school sports competitions. It also tried to block federal funding for California schools to enforce compliance. But a judge ruled this maneuver was unlawful.
“The court rightly recognized that under the Spending Clause, which requires ‘clear notice,’ the federal government cannot use shifting agency interpretations to spring retroactive conditions on states and pull their funding for maintaining trans-inclusive policies,” said Bria Nelson, Gender Justice and Health Equity staff attorney at Lawyers for Good Government, in a statement to Erin in the Morning.
“This ruling sends a powerful message that the administration cannot weaponize Title IX to mandate state-sponsored discrimination against transgender youth.”
In its complaint, the DOJ argued California’s trans-inclusive sports policies, which allow trans students to compete on the team and use the facilities (locker rooms and bathrooms) of their preferred gender, violate Title IX by inherently “displacing” other athletes, specifically on girls’ teams. So, the federal government threatened to pull funding from California schools.
At first, CIF tried to strike a compromise and ended up satisfying no one. It offered cisgender athletes a conciliation spot at the podium if they were beaten by a transgender girl. But bending the knee didn’t keep the Trump regime at bay. CIF was hit with a lawsuit nonetheless. The DOJ argued that it needed to segregate trans students not only on sports teams, but also in locker rooms, bathrooms, and accommodations like hotels on student field trips.
Furthermore, the government asserted that California owed monetary reparations to cisgender girls who competed against trans girls, and that the state was compelled to retroactively strip trans girls of their medals and give them to cisgender athletes instead.
Like many anti-trans lawsuits and laws, the most comprehensive anti-trans policies were surreptitiously pushed through under the guise of the trans athlete “debate.” (The “debate” in question is a politically calculated and manufactured crisis engineered by the right for the explicit purpose of fomenting anti-trans animus.)
“Because Defendants were not given clear notice of the funding condition Plaintiff now seeks to enforce, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Spending Clause,” Valenzuela wrote. Therefore, she concluded, it does not matter whether Title IX can be used to mandate trans exclusion.
However, she pointed to the precedent set by West Virginia v. BPJ—the recent ruling by the Supreme Court upholding West Virginia’s anti-trans athlete law. Perhaps counterintuitively, she wrote that the landmark ruling that permitted West Virginia to discriminate against trans athletes also, at least for now, sustained California’s rights to protect them.
“The Court repeatedly framed that holding in permissive terms,” Valenzuela wrote. “It explained that Title IX’s regulations ‘expressly permit schools’ to maintain separate sex-based teams and ultimately held that States ‘may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females’ and ‘may determine eligibility’ for those teams based on biological sex.” The Court did not say Title IX “mandates” schools to do so, nor that they “must” maintain “sex-based” categories.
“The Court thus upheld the biological-sex eligibility rules before it without holding that Title IX requires every school to adopt the same rule,” she continued. “The Court also declined to decide whether Title IX permits transgender girls to participate on girls’ and women’s teams. It expressly stated that nothing in the opinion was intended to decide that ‘distinct question,’ because it was not at issue.”
Lily Norcross, an 18-year-old track-and-field athlete from California in her senior year of high school, told Erin in the Morning the lawsuit was an attack on “our democratic systems.”
It was also an attack on her, personally. Not only is she a trans athlete in the state; she was also targeted and identifiably referenced in the case, though not by name, after another student complained about her at a school board meeting.
The lawsuit claims she engaged in sexual harassment because she was reportedly sitting in the girls’ locker room even after she had changed into her track uniform. Therefore, the Department of Justice concludes, she had “no reason to be in a locker room other than to watch the girls undress.”
“I believe this case was just designed to normalize hatred against trans youth,” Norcross said.
The Department of Justice told the Los Angeles Times that it would file an appeal. If it succeeds, the case would come before the Ninth Circuit.
Brian Dittmeier, Director of LGBTQI+ Equality at the National Women’s Law Center, said that while the case focused on the Spending Clause instead of other Constitutional provisions, like Equal Protection, it still sends a powerful message for states with equal rights policies for trans people. He emphasized Valenzuela’s references to FAU v. Ellison. That Eighth Circuit case from earlier this year ended with the court denying an anti-trans organization’s bid for a preliminary injunction against the Minnesota State High School League’s inclusion of a transgender softball player.
Similar to Valenzuela, that panel of judges declared that the validity of protections for trans athletes under Title IX was not yet a settled matter. More importantly, however, Ellison reinforced the notion that the Trump Administration cannot simply bend Title IX to its will with, say, anti-trans executive orders.
“Executive findings and agency guidance cannot independently establish a claim under Title IX,” Dittmeier told Erin in the Morning. “They are attempting to abuse the enforcement process at the Office of Civil Rights to put forth their own preferred policy vision, instead of upholding the law. The Trump Administration can continue to try and push this view, but they will fail because they will keep running into the law.”
In the meantime, Dittmeier said these cases show promise for states that choose to fight for trans youth and preserve equal rights policies.
“This ruling demonstrates that inclusive policies can continue to be implemented and that states should stand by their policies, which are in accordance with Title IX,” he said.
The full ruling from Judge Valenzuela can be found below.
“In the meantime, Dittmeier said these cases show promise for states that choose to fight for trans youth and preserve equal rights policies.
“This ruling demonstrates that inclusive policies can continue to be implemented and that states should stand by their policies, which are in accordance with Title IX,” he said.”
And that’s a good note to end the day on.
WOW for the judge that understands and protects the transgender community and stops this administration from taking money away