The dispute centered on Jane Doe, a biological male who has identified as a transgender girl since age ten. Doe captains a varsity girls’ softball team in the Minnesota State High School League, which permits participation consistent with gender identity under a 2016 bylaw. Doe led the team to a state championship last season, pitching every inning of the final five playoff games.
Female Athletes United sued Minnesota officials and school boards, alleging that allowing Doe to compete deprived its members of equal treatment and effective accommodation. The group sought to enjoin male athletes from competing against female members in contact sports.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender concluded that the organization’s claims were based on a disparate impact theory. The court held that Title IX provides no private right of action for disparate impact claims, foreclosing the lawsuit regardless of the merits of the underlying allegations.
The court rejected the argument that federal guidance from the Trump administration created a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Judge Gruender noted that executive guidance and agency findings do not reflect settled law, emphasizing that whether Title IX permits transgender participation remains an open question of law.
The panel also addressed the organization’s argument that defendants showed deliberate indifference to federal warnings. The court found this theory dubious, noting that under the previous administration’s interpretation of Title IX, the defendants had good reason to believe that excluding Doe would have constituted sex discrimination.
The court affirmed that the organization had standing to pursue its claims. It determined that one member, Athlete 1, had standing because her team was scheduled to play Doe’s team in the upcoming season, and the record supported that they were likely to compete against one another.
The Eighth Circuit denied a request to hold the case pending decisions in two related Supreme Court cases. The panel noted that the Supreme Court cases concern Equal Protection and Title IX challenges to state laws, whereas this appeal centered on the private right of action issue.
Because the court affirmed on the private right of action ground, it declined to address whether the organization satisfied the other requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. This left unresolved the broader substantive questions about competitive fairness and athletic advantages that dominated the parties’ briefing.