This  was originally published on .

Just days after the California Department of Education and California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) leaders refused to ban transgender athletes from high school sports, the Trump administration sued the state’s Education Department, the .

The U.S. Department of Education on June 25 said that the state Education Department and the CIF, which governs high school athletics, violated federal law and  to bar transgender athlete participation in sports or face legal action. 

On Monday, the California agencies . 

As threatened, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, saying California’s transgender athlete policies violate Title IX, the landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. 

California’s high school athletics guidelines allow athletes to participate in sports aligned with their gender identity — a policy that is consistent with 2013 state legislation that allows students to participate on sports teams . 

According to AP, the federal Justice Department said California’s rules “are not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signaling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.”

But California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said state law does not align with this interpretation of the federal law. 

The issue is the latest fight in a nationwide battle over the rights of transgender youth, AP reported. For example, some states have limited transgender girls from participating on girls sports teams. 

California’s policy for high schoolers does not have a legal or medical requirement, such as a documented name change or gender-confirming care, for transgender students to compete, . Student participation is based solely on their gender identity or expression.

The Republican-controlled House passed two bills last week that would bar transgender girls from competing on girls sports teams. But Democrats, who control the Senate, say they will not consider the legislation.

“Our legislative agenda is long and attacking kids is not on it,” Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, a Democrat from Grand Rapids, told Chalkbeat in a statement.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Failure to take up the Republican-sponsored bills could draw unwelcome political attention to Michigan at a time when the Trump administration has targeted for investigation states that don’t comply with its view on Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sex.

Since taking office for the second time, targeting the rights of transgender Americans. One in January said the U.S. government would only recognize two genders, male and female, while another issued that month attempted to ban gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. A February called for schools to block trans girls from competing on girls sports teams.

Trump has  funding from schools that don’t comply with his executive orders.

Executive orders cannot override existing state and federal statutes, though, and there have been to the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders.

But the Trump administration’s have stoked fears over how he intends to enforce it. Multiple federal agencies into Maine this year after a heated exchange between Trump and the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, in which she promised to follow the state’s law protecting transgender rights.

In one of those federal cases, a judge issued an injunction to stop the government from freezing federal funds to the state. But there are to enforce.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said other states are at risk of losing federal funding for Title IX violations, specifically singling out California and Minnesota. Officials in those states have  with Trump’s executive order. Bondi’s office announced Wednesday that it has .

Like some other states, Michigan recently expanded state protections from discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity and expression. The expansion of those protections two years ago has long been a signature issue for Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

She signed the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 2023, saying in a statement that “Michigan is a place that will fight for your freedom to be yourself.”

It is possible what has happened in Maine could happen in Michigan, said Nancy Chi Cantalupo, associate professor of law at Wayne State University.

“But what is happening in Maine is in no way a success for the current administration at this point,” she said, noting that the federal government has never withdrawn funds from a state under Title IX or any other civil rights statutes it enforces.

“It’s not like there’s a light switch the federal government can use to just turn off federal funds at its whim,” she said. “There are a lot of steps it has to go through.”

Brinks did not respond to a question about whether she or others in the Democratic Party have concerns Michigan may be targeted by the Trump administration.

Whitmer’s office did not respond to questions about the bills.

In Michigan, a prohibition against trans girls competing on girls sports teams would affect few athletes statewide. The Michigan High School Athletic Association, the private organization that runs the state’s high school sports competitions, said there were no trans girls competing on spring sports teams this year. None played on winter sports teams, while two played on fall teams.

About 25 states similar laws restricting trans girls from playing on sports teams aligned with their gender identity.

Advocates for transgender rights say sports bills aren’t really about limiting the teams trans girls and women can play on.

“If this bill were just about sports, it wouldn’t be proposed in coordination with all of these other anti-trans bills [nationwide,]” said Kye Campbell-Fox, a research assistant and laboratory manager at Michigan State University, who studies the impact of legislation targeting the rights of trans kids. “This is a coordinated campaign to push trans people out of public life.”

Advocates say trans youth don’t feel safe as their rights are attacked

Though the Michigan bills have effectively died, advocates say lawmakers’ focus on the issue — and the language they often use to talk about trans athletes — is still harmful to all trans children.

The Michigan bills, for example, referred to trans girls as “biological males,” ignoring their gender identities. And some lawmakers have said that the presence of trans girls in locker rooms could lead to sexual violence against other girls.

Rep. Mike Harris, a Republican from Waterford, said during a hearing for the bills that he was concerned about the potential for sexual assault if trans girls use girls locker rooms.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to place biological boys and girls in the same room, to strip down naked next to each other,” he said.

There is no evidence to support the idea that trans girls will assault other girls, though there is evidence that when they use bathrooms according to the sex they were assigned at birth.

Republican lawmakers’ rhetoric students and adults to feel freer to make hateful remarks, and LGBTQ+ youth are being affected by it.

“I’m hearing a lot of fear from youth,” said Jude Krajnyák, a regional coordinator for a research policy project at the Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health. “Things everyone else gets to take for granted — like playing soccer in middle school — are rights that are being taken away from us.”

Krajnyák said he heard from a trans girl in middle school who gave up on playing soccer because she said “it’s just not worth” the backlash.

Currently, the Michigan High School Athletic Association determines eligibility for trans girls to play on girls teams on a case-by-case basis. The executive director of the association, Mark Uyl, makes the determination based on a number of factors, including what gender is recorded on the students’ school documents and other paperwork. Students are also asked whether they’ve begun hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries.

“The MHSAA asks for documentation on therapy and surgery as our policy allows for a waiver to be both approved and denied — and part of that decision is based on where in the transitioning process a student is at the time,” Geoff Kimmerly, director of communications for the association, told Chalkbeat.

The policy went into effect in 2012, according to the association. It aligned with federal law during the Obama administration, as well as federal requirements from the Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term and Biden’s presidency.

“The MHSAA follows and will continue to follow all applicable state and federal laws,” said Kimmerly in a statement. “We are monitoring developments in this regard closely.”

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

In a move condemned by advocates and lawmakers as an attack on trans students who fear any change to could also increase bullying and violence, passed 8-3 Wednesday evening. 

“We know sports build self confidence and a sense of belonging, which is especially critical for this group of students. Rather than excluding our trans students we ought to be working together to wrap our arms around them. They need love, encouragement and support, not political attacks,” said NYC Schools Chancellor David Banks Wednesday evening. 

After citing statistics that one in three trans youth are suicidal and one in three are survivors of abuse, Banks called the resolution “despicable” and, in an exasperated tone, posed a question: “Would you just leave the kids alone?” 

At a packed District 2 community education council meeting, ACLU civil rights lawyer and District 2 parent Chase Strangio pointed out the current gender guidelines align with state law. “So this resolution does nothing but target trans young people,” Santiago said. 

“I will not sit idly by and see the same misinformed efforts be pushed in my own school district. I will not let NYC, the birthplace and home of some of the most powerful trans people in history, be yet another testing ground for rhetoric that expels my community,” said Strangio, who is trans.

The resolution urges that a reevaluation committee be formed to include female athletes, parents, coaches, medical professionals and evolutionary biology experts, and claims current guidelines “present challenges” particularly to girls. The resolution’s primary sponsor, Maud Maron, said the resolution is in essence asking to hear from all “impacted voices,” according to . 

Given the Chancellor’s condemnation and that community education councils are advisory, it is unlikely DOE leaders will follow the council’s recommendation. 

In December, Banks also used the word “despicable” to describe comments made by Maron in a private chat, which included “trans kids don’t exist.” Parents and advocates have grown increasingly frustrated with the Chancellor’ broken promise to “take action,” made more than three months ago. 

In the time since Banks made his pledge, Community Board 2 issued a resolution demanding the DOE acknowledge and require parent leaders adhere to respective guidelines on bullying and fostering a safe learning environment for all students, particularly LGBTQ students. The late February resolution also encouraged penalties for parents found in violation of Chancellor regulations, including verbal and written warnings and/or suspension of involvement.

Separately, several District 2 CEC members wrote in a February email to Banks that went unanswered that parents’ and students’ rights and protections “continue to be unabashedly violated.” 

In the district which includes hyper-liberal neighborhoods like Chelsea and Greenwich Village, the resolution and restricting LGBTQ student rights doesn’t hold broad public support, parents say. 

“There really wasn’t a debate in our community,” said district 2 parent and CEC member Gavin Healy. “It was very much like ‘we don’t like this, we don’t want this.’”

Dozens of community members spoke out against the gender resolution with only one expressing support. All but two of 175 emails received by the council in advance of its vote were against its passage. 

At least 25 states, concentrated in the south and midwest, have introduced consistent with their gender identity. 

But the resolution’s introduction and passage in New York City is unsurprising, given parent leaders with conservative-leaning education desires endorsed by Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum make up . The group, known as PLACE, was co-founded by Maron. 

“I think they really want something that they can take back to Moms for Liberty and use it as a PR stunt — look, even in Manhattan there’s this concern,” said Healy. “It has to do with that national, moral panic that they are fueling. It’s fodder.”

Conservative parent voices have been rising in the city. Moms for Liberty, which advocates for parental rights and is categorized as an extremist hate organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center, opened its first chapter in NYC last year. Maron spoke on a the group held in January. 

This particular gender resolution is “legally unenforceable and dangerous,” said David Bloomfield, Brooklyn College education, law and public policy professor. A is currently underway in suburban Nassau County, New York, where a attempted to ban trans women and girls from public athletic facilities. 

Bloomfield said Maron was “…exercising her rights as an individual and as an elected official to state her policy preferences, which have been no secret. She’s following through essentially on what her voters asked for,” adding in the past, chancellors such as Richard Carranza have

The gender resolution passed on the same night the council passed another seemingly at odds, one affirming support of LGBTQ students and families. Maron was the only council member to abstain from voting on the resolution in support of LGBTQ students. 

Since December, a petition to have Maron removed from the Stuyvesant High School leadership team has . It circulated after she was quoted in a NY Post article calling an anonymous student author a “coward,” accusing them of “Jew hatred,” calling for their name to be public for their op-ed in the student newspaper.

Many parents and students feel her actions constituted bullying and threaten free speech at the school.

“The mission is the kids. Getting through the classes. Keeping them safe … They just don’t need this added pressure,” said one parent speaking on condition of anonymity. “[Maron] politicizes every situation she can and I feel like any statement she makes is for her own personal gain. It’s not for the school, it’s not for the students.” 

Reem Khalifa, a junior at Stuyvesant, said recent events have been disheartening and made her “fearful for the people around me. Do they recognize and hold the same beliefs?” 

Maron did not return a request for comment. 

“The DOE is trying to shield themselves from liability,” said Healy, “even if that means leaving people in the community vulnerable.” 

In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the suit, which was brought by four high school athletes who have since graduated.

The former runners had argued that allowing transgender students to compete denied them opportunities to win championships, scholarships and employment. 

In fact, the plaintiffs had competed and won — in numerous instances, over the two transgender athletes in question. That, the appellate court ruled, makes their claims ““: “Plaintiffs simply have not been deprived of a ‘chance to be champions.’ ” 

Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, said it is considering whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools. 

“The 2nd Circuit got it wrong, and we’re evaluating all legal options, including appeal,” said senior counsel Christiana Kiefer. “Our clients — like all female athletes — deserve access to fair competition.” 

Title IX, part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects students from sex-based discrimination. The question of whether the law applies to transgender students has been by policymakers in recent years, with courts deciding that a different but very similar section of the law says it does and religious conservatives saying it does not. 

Legal experts expect the high court to take up a Title IX transgender rights case, though procedural issues particular to the Connecticut case may discourage them from hearing it. “I think, ultimately, the court will decide to step into this issue,” says Jessica Mason Pieklo, a former constitutional law instructor who is now co-host of the legal podcast “Boom! Lawyered” and executive editor of Rewire News Group. “Whether or not it’s the Soule case, we’ll see.”

The main argument advanced by the plaintiffs was that allowing transgender students to compete alongside other female athletes violated Title IX by failing to protect the cisgender girls. In upholding the suit’s dismissal, the appeals court said the claim — that Connecticut education officials had ignored their obligations under the law — was the opposite of what had happened.

The plaintiffs were seniors in high school when the in February 2020, and thus had graduated before it was . In essence, the appeals court has now ruled that the female athletes have no standing to sue because the past harm they assert does not exist and, if it did, any future ramifications would be speculative. 

A recent Supreme Court opinion in a case involving Title VII, which covers employment, concluded that discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily prohibited along with other forms of gender-based prejudice. The majority opinion in that case, , was authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” he wrote. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” 

Because of this, Pieklo and others have noted, even if a majority on the conservative-dominated court is willing to curtail LGBTQ rights, the justices would also have to reconcile their own contradictory decisions. “The court is going to have to decide if it’s going to read ‘because of sex’ in Title IX consistently with how it read ‘because of sex’ in Title VII,” she says. “And historically, the Supreme Court has read all of the Civil Rights Acts — Title VI, Title VII, Title VIII — consistently with each other. Is there a reason why the court should or would read Title IX differently?”

Three times in recent years, the court has allowed rulings upholding LGBTQ students’ rights to stand without taking up the cases. In June 2021, the justices let stand a federal appeals court decision that Title IX protected the rights of Gavin Grimm, a transgender student in Virginia who wanted to use male restrooms in school. It also declined to hear a transgender bathroom case filed in Florida.

If the high court decides not to hear the Soule case, Pieklo says, she would not be surprised if Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issue a separate opinion essentially inviting other Title IX challenges by saying the court should consider the issue. Both have signaled their Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing marriage equality. 

Over the last two years, lawmakers and governors in more than 18 states have enacted rules barring transgender students from playing sports or using school facilities consistent with their gender identities. Because of this, a number of suits filed by LGBTQ students under a variety of legal theories are now working their way through the courts. In some instances, enforcement of the laws is on hold while this occurs. 

Whether any of those cases make it to the high court won’t be known for perhaps years. But Pieklo expects Alliance Defending Freedom and other Christian conservative advocacy organizations will continue to challenge the same basic issue under differing guises, as has happened in cases involving merchants who don’t want to do business with LGBTQ clients. 

“We will see a continued ‘bite at the apple, bite at the apple, bite at the apple,’ ” she says. “It’s almost the same exact playbook.”