Minnesota urges federal judge to toss challenges to trans athlete policies

The Justice Department told the judge to ignore past guidance and precedent supporting transgender athlete inclusion, calling such Title IX interpretation "erroneous."ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) — Minnesota and its educational bodies told a federal judge Monday it is illogical to conclude the state intended to disparage female athletes with its transgender athlete policies — positioning them as “good-faith” efforts to protect transgender students.“There’s no plausible allegation that the high school league was motivated to discriminate against girls when it adopted its transgender policy,” Kevin Beck, attorney for the Minnesota State High School League, said, challenging a pair of suits by women’s sports advocacy group Female Athletes United and the Justice Department claiming the state intentionally discriminates against female athletes through its inclusive policies.The league’s 2016 policy allows transgender students to play on sports teams matching their gender identity, consistent with the state’s broad gender identity protections.Both challenges cite dominant pitching in high school girls softball as primary evidence of unfair competition under the policy — including one transgender pitcher who surrendered one earned run across 35 innings.Representing female athletes who faced this pitcher, Female Athletes United first sued the state over its policies in May 2025.Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud and the Eighth Circuit later denied the group’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding private parties lack a right to sue under Title IX’s regulations when they cannot show discriminatory intent.The Donald Trump appointee once again hammered the group on third-party standing Monday, criticizing its attempt to rewrite game records.“I’ve never heard of an instance where an outside organization or a team member has the legal ability to petition to undo the outcome of a game,” he said — a point echoed by Minnesota.“It is too speculative. It is not in any meaningful sense of the word a forward-looking injunction,” Minnesota Deputy Solicitor General Peter Farrell said. “They are asking the court to go back in time and rewrite history.”The group’s attorney, Zachary Tyree, countered that the suit centers on fairness for girls forced to compete against biologically superior athletes.Months before Female Athletes United sued, the Trump administration launched an investigation into the state under President Donald Trump’s executive orders, threatening legal action and $3 billion in federal funds before filing its own Title IX lawsuit this March.Minnesota maintains its bylaws are a necessary application of Title IX, and that barring transgender people from participating in sports violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits gender identity discrimination.The government contends biological advantage remains unaffected by gender identity — noting Minnesota’s policies have little impact on male sports because transgender boys often face a biological disadvantage.Highlighting shifting federal guidance across different administrations, Minnesota said Title IX cannot possibly be as cut-and-dry as the federal government claims.“This has been a policy hot potato that has shifted between administrations that has been extremely difficult for local governments and officials to administer,” Farrell said, noting it’s impossible to prove Minnesota acted with “deliberate indifference” or intent to harm cisgender girls.The group’s and federal attorneys argue the high school league adopted a policy with no guardrails despite receiving thousands of complaints warning of harm to female sports.“They were being told this was going to harm girls and they ignored it,” Tyree said.Tostrud questioned both over whether he should simply ignore past, opposing views.“We have judges at the circuit court level saying this approach is appropriate to Title IX,” he said. “Is your position that everybody that addressed this issue is wrong?”“I don’t think that the erroneous guidance supplied by a presidential administration that conflicts with the statute is relevant,” Justice Department attorney Jordan Carpenter said.Because Title IX acts like a contract tied to federal funding, the Trump administration argues states cannot accept such funds while maintaining conflicting state policies.The state, however, claims this strict, biological sex requirement appears nowhere in Title IX’s text, meaning Minnesota had no “clear notice” accepting funds would require banning transgender athletes.State officials say executive direction at the time of the policy’s enactment in 2016 even encouraged inclusivity.To strengthen its argument, the Trump administration referenced a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., finding state laws banning transgender girls from female school sports teams do not violate federal law.While *B.P.J.*allowed the 27 states with active bans to enforce them, it left others free to set their own inclusive policies — though the government said this doesn’t leave Minnesota in the clear.“While the Supreme Court hasn’t answered that question, that doesn’t mean Title IX hasn’t answered that question,” Carpenter said. “The regulations, despite being silent on the exact conduct, clearly prohibit what Minnesota is doing.”Minnesota previously sued the Trump administration over it’s Title IX interpretation, though a federal judge largely dismissed that suit in August.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads