The Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit filed by four female track and field athletes challenging Connecticut’s policy of permitting transgender women to compete based on gender identity, arguing that it violates Title IX.
“Plaintiffs plausibly allege that directing Defendants to alter public athletic records related to the particularized injury they allege could at least provide Plaintiffs with the publicly recognized titles and placements they would have received if Intervenors had not competed and finished ahead of Plaintiffs in specific races,” Judge Alison Nathan based in Manhattan wrote on Friday.
The ruling overturns a federal court’s decision in December 2023 to dismiss the case. In February 2020, three female high-school students, alongside their families, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block trans athletes from competing in female sports in Connecticut.
The plaintiffs include Selina Soule and Chelsea Mitchell — then-seniors — as well as Alanna Smith, a sophomore. Their joint filing argued that the trio were personally harmed by state policy permitting biological males to compete against them in running events, contributing to them not qualifying for championship titles and scholarship opportunities.
The lawsuit named the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC), which in 2017, revised its policies to allow biological males identifying as women to compete against based on gender identity. “Our dream is not to come in second or third place, but to win fair and square,” Mitchell said at the time. “All we’re asking for is a fair chance.” “Mentally and physically, we know the outcome before the race even starts,” Smith added. “That biological unfairness doesn’t go away because of what someone believes about gender identity. All girls deserve the chance to compete on a level playing field.”
Their lawyers have argued that the policy flouts Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally-funded education programs.
“Forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is completely at odds with Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics,” said Christiana Holcomb, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the girls. “Connecticut’s policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women.”
During the 2019 Indoor Track & Field State Championships season, Soule finished one place away from qualifying for finals and two places away from qualifying to compete in front of college scouts at the New England Regional Championships. Two of the athletes ahead of her were transgender. Mitchell and Smith both cited instances of poor performance due to competing against transgender athletes.
Friday’s announcement was greeted by both sides of the case, who viewed the announcement as an opportunity to present the strength of their respective cases. “Today’s narrow decision lays a strong foundation for the district courts to reject these baseless claims on the merits. We look forward to continuing our fight for equality and fairness for all girls, cisgender and transgender alike,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing two transgender athletes involved in the case, said in an official statement.
Roger Brooks, an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom representing the plaintiffs, said the reversal strengthens his clients’ cases and pointed to the shortcomings of the existing CIAC policy. “The CIAC’s policy degraded each of their accomplishments and scarred their athletic records, irreparably harming each female athlete’s interest in accurate recognition of her athletic achievements,” Brooks said. “The en banc 2nd Circuit was right to allow these brave women to make their case under Title IX and set the record straight. This is imperative not only for the women who have been deprived of medals, potential scholarships, and other athletic opportunities, but for all female athletes across the country.”
The case will be returned to U.S. district judge Robert Chatigny, who earlier dismissed the claim on procedural grounds, back in April.