Page 5
Ninth Circuit:
Arizona May Not Bar Boys From Playing on Girls’ Teams
Decision Affirms Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting Enforcement of State’s ‘Save Women’s Sports Act’ as to Two Male Pupils Who Identify With Female Gender; Says Equal Protection Challenge Is Likely to Prevail
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the state of Arizona from enforcing its “Save Women’s Sports Act” as to two boys—one 11 and the other 15—who identify with the female gender, allowing them to continue to play on girls’ sport teams.
Under the 2022 legislation, “[a]thletic teams or sports designated for ‘females,’ ‘women’ or ‘girls’ may not be open to students of the male sex.”
Ninth Circuit Judge Morgan Christen authored the opinion, which was joined in by Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown and District Judge Judges David A. Ezra of the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
The decision embraces the reasoning of District Court Judge Jennifer G. Zipps of the District of Arizona who found that the 2022 legislation “was adopted for the purpose of excluding transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams” although “[b]efore puberty, there are no significant differences in athletic performance between boys and girls.” Zipps determined that the plaintiffs, Jane Doe and Megan Roe, are likely to prevail on their claims under the Equal Protection Clause.
Gender-Status Discrimination
Christen declared that “there is simply no denying that a transgender sports ban discriminates based on transgender status.” She went on to say:
“The Act…permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities; transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”
The jurist wrote that “the district court properly concluded that Appellants are unlikely to establish that the Act’s sweeping transgender ban is substantially related to achievement of the State’s important governmental objectives in ensuring competitive fairness and equal athletic opportunity for female student-athletes.”
Extent of Holding
She added:
“We note that nothing in today’s decision, or in the district court’s decision, precludes policymakers from adopting appropriate regulations in this field—regulations that are substantially related to important governmental objectives….States have important interests in inclusion, nondiscrimination, competitive fairness, student safety, and completing the still unfinished and important job of ensuring equal athletic opportunities for women and girls, who must have an equal opportunity not only to participate in sports but also to compete and win. We hold only that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining Arizona from barring Jane and Megan from playing school sports consistent with their gender identity while this litigation is pending.”
The plaintiffs also sued under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which provides:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Christen said that because state Superintendent of Schools Thomas C. Horne “was properly enjoined based on the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim, we need not decide whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Title IX claim as well.”
The case is Doe v. Horne, 23-16026.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company