A US judge will not dismiss the lawsuit from female athletes from Connecticut who want to ban transgender competition

November 6, 2024 11:03 PM • Last updated: November 6, 2024 11:03 PM

A federal judge in Hartford has refused to fire the man a groundbreaking lawsuit by female track and field athletes battling what they call an unfair and discriminatory state policy that requires them to compete at a disadvantage against competitors born as biological males.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny announced the ruling Tuesday as the polls opened for an election that revealed sometimes sharp disagreements as questions about whether male-born athletes could participate in women’s sports became part of the campaign debate.

The decision means the lawsuit – been rejected before, but reinstated by a federal appeals court – will continue. Both sides are expected to argue in coming months that they are entitled to protections under a federal civil rights law known as Title IX, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs.

“This case presents a direct conflict between two interests protected by Title IX: the interest in providing fair competition for biological women, which has long been recognized as a significant government interest under Title IX, and the interest in providing opportunity for transgender girls to participate. in girls sports, which is now protected by a Connecticut state statute,” Chatigny wrote.

A lawyer familiar with the case said its resolution could come down to a decision about “whose rights outweigh those of the other.”

Attorneys representing parties to the case were not immediately available to discuss the case.

The lawsuit challenges a decade-old policy by the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conferencethe governing board of high school athletics, which allows high school students to participate in school-sponsored athletics, consistent with the gender identity recorded on their school records.

The four plaintiffs, described by the appeals court as “non-transgender girls,” challenged the policy, complaining that it violates the portion of Title IX credited with expanding women’s athletics by requiring them to provide funding and opportunities equal to that of their male counterparts. .

In addition to the CIAC, they are suing five school districts. Two trans athletes named in the lawsuit have been allowed to intervene in the case, as has the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunity and the U.S. Department of Education.

The four young women competed against the transgender athletes in high school track and field events in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

While the four didn’t always lose, they claim they lost important races because the transgender athletes had a “physiological athletic advantage.”

The effect of the allegedly unfair competition was to deter the four from progressing to higher levels of competition, such as the final heats of championship competitions, and, they said, it damaged their chances of competing at university.

The four are seeking financial compensation from the CIAC and an injunction requiring the CIAC to remove the names of transgender athletes from state athletics records and reshuffle the titles and placements of non-transgender athletes.

Controversies over transgender athletes participating in women’s high school and college sports have erupted across the country, but they are relatively new and none similar to the Connecticut case has yet been brought to court. In his 55-page decision, Chatigny acknowledged at times that “there are few guidelines” in existing law for courts like his trying to balance competing interests in the case.

Based on the evidence before him, Chatigny said the four female athletes “plausibly” argued that the inability to “provide them with sex-segregated competition deprived them of high-quality competitive opportunities” and “in effect reduced the number of available competitive opportunities reduced’. female athletes.”

But Chatigny also noted that the CIAC and the cities named in the lawsuit argued that they were legally required by the Title IX law to allow transgender athletes to compete to avoid being discriminated against based on their interpretation of the term ‘sex’ in the law. the law.

The sports organization and the cities argue that the Title IX definition of sex “includes gender identity and thus protects both transgender girls and biological girls.” The four female athletes argue that the term has a clear meaning, one that refers solely to immutable biological characteristics related to reproduction.

Chatigny wrote that when Title IX was enacted in 1972, the generally accepted definition of sex was that of immutable biology. But he said that based on his review of the relatively new federal appellate law, which is subject to further judicial review, he “presumes” that discrimination based on transgender status violates Title IX.

Because both sides in the lawsuit have plausible arguments that they are protected by Title IX’s anti-discrimination provisions, Chatigny said a way must be figured out to balance the conflicting rights. To do that, he said the parties in the case must first prepare a case-by-case basis based on applicable law and competition track record.

“In short… courts engage in a fact-specific analysis that balances the interests of the parties and the public,” he wrote. “This consideration requires an adequately developed record. Since no such record exists here, it would be premature to make such a determination at this time.”

Chatigny had previously dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds in April 2023. He said, among other things, that there was no longer a dispute to be resolved because the transgender athletes had completed high school.

The full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Chatigny a year ago in a decision that included seven concurring and dissenting opinions. It said the four high school students had persuasively argued that they suffered “a concrete, specific, and actual injury” that “might be recoverable through monetary damages and an injunction directing Defendants to amend certain athletic records.”