Federal judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit challenging California policy allowing biological males in girls’ sports
A US federal judge has dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit that sought to force California to bar transgender girls and women from girls' and women's school sports, allowing the state's existing policy to remain in place. This matters because it marks a setback for the Trump administration's efforts to use Title IX enforcement to restrict transgender athletes' participation, and it comes soon after a Supreme Court ruling that upheld states' right to impose such bans without requiring them to do so.
US District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela did not rule on the underlying fairness debate, instead finding that federal officials had failed to give California proper advance notice before threatening to withhold $44 billion (£35 billion) in education funding. The Justice Department said it was reviewing an appeal and remained committed to the policy. California has allowed transgender students to compete in line with their gender identity since 2013, a rule that gained prominence through athlete AB Hernandez, whose wins at state track and field championships prompted rival schools to forfeit volleyball matches and led officials to introduce duplicate medals for affected female competitors.
- Judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit over California's trans school sports policy
- Ruling based on funding notice rules, not fairness debate
- DOJ says it is reviewing an appeal
New here? Start with this
Judge Cynthia Valenzuela's ruling didn't decide whether it's fair for transgender athletes to compete in girls' and women's school sports. Instead, she found that the Justice Department had failed to give California proper notice before threatening to strip the state of $44 billion in federal education funding, a procedural failing that led her to throw the case out.
The dispute centres on a California rule, in place since 2013, allowing students to take part in school sports according to their gender identity rather than the sex they were assigned at birth. It became a flashpoint after transgender athlete AB Hernandez won state track and field titles, prompting some rival schools to forfeit matches and officials to hand out duplicate medals to affected female competitors.
The case sits within a wider national argument over transgender participation in school sports, which the Trump administration has sought to restrict using Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. It follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that states may ban transgender athletes from female sports categories if they choose, though it does not require them to. The Justice Department says it is considering an appeal.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of California's policy argue that transgender girls and women are girls and women, and that excluding them from school sports would single out a small, already marginalised group for exclusion from the social, health and educational benefits that team participation brings. They contend that gender identity, not chromosomes or birth certificates, should determine eligibility, consistent with how California treats trans people in other areas of public life, and warn that federal funding threats amount to coercive overreach into matters of state and local school governance. Many also point out that the judge's ruling rested on procedural grounds, namely inadequate advance notice, which they see as a legitimate check on abrupt federal power rather than a dodge of the substantive question.
The case against
Opponents argue that preserving separate girls' categories on the basis of biological sex is essential to fair competition, since average differences in strength, speed and physiology conferred by male puberty can persist even after a transition, potentially disadvantaging female athletes in scoring, rankings and scholarship opportunities. They point to incidents such as rival teams forfeiting matches and the introduction of duplicate medals as evidence that the current policy is already straining competitive fairness and athlete morale on the ground. They further argue that the federal government has a legitimate role in enforcing Title IX's original purpose of securing equal athletic opportunity for women, and that a ruling decided on a technical notice failure leaves the core fairness question unresolved rather than settled in California's favour.