California Sues DOJ Over Demand to Ban Trans Athletes

Introduction to the Lawsuit

California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law.

Background of the Lawsuit

The “pre-enforcement” lawsuit was filed “in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems” for not complying with the agency’s directive by its Monday deadline, said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which is handling the litigation.

Statement from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta

“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution — or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” Bonta said in a statement. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one.”

The DOJ’s Demand

The lawsuit comes a week after Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and head of the federal Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to school districts across California warning them that they faced potential “legal liability” if they did not “certify in writing” by Monday that they will break with California Interscholastic Federation rules and state law to ban transgender athletes from competition in their districts.

Argument Against Trans Athletes

Dhillon argued that allowing transgender athletes to compete “would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex,” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Response from State Officials

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond responded last week by saying in his own letter to schools that Dhillon’s warning carried no legal weight and that school districts were still obligated to follow state law, which requires transgender athletes be allowed to compete on teams based on their gender identity.

California Department of Education’s Stance

The California Department of Education sent a letter to federal authorities Monday, informing them that California’s school districts are under no obligation to provide certifications to the Justice Department.

Statement from General Counsel Len Garfinkel

“There are no changes in law or circumstances that necessitate a new certification,” wrote General Counsel Len Garfinkel. “Moreover, the DOJ letter references no law that would authorize the DOJ to require another ‘certification.’”
“All students — not just transgender students — benefit from inclusive school environments that are free from discrimination and harassment,” Garfinkel added. “When transgender students are treated equally, their mental health outcomes mirror those of their cisgender peers.”

The Lawsuit’s Claims

Bonta’s lawsuit asks a federal court in Northern California to uphold the constitutionality of California’s antidiscrimination laws protecting transgender athletes, and to bar the Trump administration from withholding funds or taking other retaliatory actions against school districts that refuse to abide by the Trump directive.

The Legal and Political Context

The lawsuit falls along one of the fastest growing legal and political fault lines in America: Does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment — the Constitution’s oft-cited guarantee against discrimination — protect transgender rights or undermine them?

Arguments For and Against Transgender Athletes

Dhillon, other members of the Trump administration and anti-transgender activists nationwide have argued that the inclusion of transgender girls in youth sports amounts to illegal discrimination against cisgender girls.
Bonta’s office and other LGBTQ+ advocates argue that the exclusion of transgender girls is what constitutes illegal discrimination — and that courts, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs California and much of the American West, have agreed.

Bonta’s Office Argument

While Dhillon “purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law,” Bonta’s office said.

State Law and Transgender Athletes

State law that allows transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their identity “is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy.”

Criticisms and Concerns

An attorney who supports keeping transgender athletes out of girls sports said the rights of female athletes are paramount in this situation.
Both the U.S. Constitution and federal statute provide protections for female athletes that California is violating by “allowing males into ‘girls only’ categories,” said Julie A. Hamill, principal attorney with California Justice Center, a law firm that has complaints pending with the federal Office for Civil Rights on behalf of young female athletes.

Statement from Julie A. Hamill

“By continuing to fan flames of division and play politics, leftist politicians and media outlets are causing further harm to American girls,” Hamill said.

Public Opinion and Support

Polls have shown that Americans generally support transgender rights, but also that a majority oppose transgender girls competing in youth sports. Many prominent advocates for excluding transgender girls from sports praised Dhillon’s actions last week as a bold move to protect cisgender girls from unfair competition.

Conclusion

The lawsuit and the issues surrounding transgender athletes in sports highlight a deepening divide in American society and politics. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to consider the legal, social, and personal implications of such policies on all parties involved.

FAQs

1. What is the basis of the lawsuit filed by California against the DOJ?

   • The lawsuit is based on the DOJ’s demand that California school districts ban transgender athletes from competing in sports, which California argues violates state and federal law.

2. What does the California law regarding transgender athletes in sports state?

   • California law requires that transgender athletes be allowed to compete on teams based on their gender identity.

3. What is the argument presented by the DOJ and supporters of banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports?

   • They argue that allowing transgender girls to compete would deprive cisgender girls of athletic opportunities and benefits, citing violation of the U.S. Constitution.

4. How have courts, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on similar matters?

   • Courts have agreed that the exclusion of transgender girls from sports constitutes illegal discrimination.
5. What are the potential consequences for schools that do not comply with the DOJ’s demand?
   • Schools face potential legal liability and the possibility of the Trump administration withholding funds or taking other retaliatory actions.