A federal appeals court has reopened a lawsuit challenging the Connecticut High School Athletic Association’s policy of allowing transgender female athletes to compete in girls’ sports. It ruled in a limited manner that it had the right to erase certain track and field records that it had lost. female competitors.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled on the key underlying question in the case: whether the cisgender girls had a legitimate claim to have been subjected to sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. He emphasized that he has not decided yet. Federal law prohibits such bias in federally funded education programs.
Soul v. Connecticut School Association decision There seemed to be unanimity on at least one point: cisgender challengers to transgender inclusion policies can return to federal district court to pursue their claims. Otherwise, opinions were mixed on the case.
“The divided nature of the Court’s opinion should in no way imply that it includes a decision that…” [the] Justice Alison J. Nathan’s majority opinion stated that whether Connecticut’s policy violates Title IX is a hotly contested question of fundamental merits. “it’s not.”
Aims to adjust state track and field records
The lawsuit involves a policy by the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletics Association that states that during the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons, four cisgender female athletes were challenged by two transgender women to compete in all races. However, after losing in some cases, it was challenged.
After the students graduated from high school, the plaintiffs focused their claims on adjusting the state’s athletic records to remove the transgender woman’s victories. In a new ruling, the 2nd Circuit said that’s enough to allow challenges to the policy to continue.
The lawsuit’s current position is that “allowing transgender girls to compete in these races violates federal law and, therefore, plaintiffs’ current records are affected by illegal policies.” “We must assume that Plaintiffs are correct,” Nathan wrote for the majority. “It is plausible to change certain public athletic records, e.g. to indicate: [one] Plaintiff…finished 1st instead of 3rd in the 2019 State Open Indoor 55m[eter] The final proposal, at least in part, belatedly eliminates the charge that it denied equal opportunity to the movement by giving plaintiffs a higher status and title than they would have had had the CIAC policy not been in place. This will be corrected. ”
The appeals court said the district court should consider whether the plaintiffs are also entitled to monetary damages. The tribunal’s 15 members issued a variety of separate opinions on the issue.
Separately from his majority opinion, which was joined by another judge, Judge Nathan wrote that federal law must be used to pass cisgender students’ claims that Connecticut’s policy violates Title IX. They must prove that schools are required to exclude transgender people. Female students will no longer be able to participate in women’s sports teams according to their established gender identity. This is an interpretation of Title IX that no court has previously adopted, and today’s decision does not change that fact. ”
In a dissenting opinion joined in whole or in part by seven other members of the court, Justice Denny Chin argued that the cisgender women plaintiffs did not agree with the injuries they allegedly suffered from losing to the transgender woman. He said there was not enough evidence that changing the athletic record would provide relief. Plaintiffs now claim that the challenged records could harm their employment opportunities. While the majority said it helped them establish themselves, no matter how remote that prospect was, Chin said there was little doubt that high school election results would affect future employment. objected, saying it was “pure speculation.”
“Here, if the injunction merely seeks to remedy a past injury by giving credit where credit is due, and the claim is primarily for the moral or emotional satisfaction of the plaintiff; That’s not enough,” Chin said.
The case will now return to U.S. District Court in Connecticut.