Transgender Athletes in Minnesota: The Conflict and Uncertainty Continues
| | Title IX
The recent ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court in Cooper v. USA Powerlifting is being hailed as a huge victory for the rights of transgender athletes and a slap in the face to the Trump administration, which has been threatening to pull federal funding from schools in the state unless the state revises its policy of allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s high school sports. Yet on closer inspection, the rights of transgender athletes in the state may not be much clearer now than they were before the ruling, and the issue of federal funding for high school sports hasn’t changed at all.
To understand why, it is necessary to look at what the court ruled and the issues it left open to further interpretation.
Background on the Case
The Supreme Court ruling concerns a case dating back to 2018, when 30-year-old weightlifter JayCee Cooper joined USA Powerlifting, an organization that sanctions and organizes weightlifting competitions. The organization follows international standards that prohibit the use of certain medications, and Cooper had applied for an exemption to this prohibition. Cooper was taking spironolactone under the guidance of a doctor to suppress testosterone production in the body.
A month before Cooper planned to compete, the organization denied permission based on Cooper’s transgender status. USA Powerlifting also revoked Cooper’s competitive card and shortly thereafter, the organization adopted a formal policy banning transgender women from competitions. At the time, the organization was going against the trend, as many organizations, including the Olympic Games, permitted transgender athletes to compete.
In 2021, Cooper filed a lawsuit alleging that USA Powerlifting violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act. After some legal wrangling over the scope of summary judgment at the district court and appellate levels, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cooper but allowed USA Powerlifting a way to legally justify its actions.
The Minnesota Human Rights Act
The Minnesota Human Rights Act, adopted in 1967 and expanded several times since, prohibits discrimination in a variety of areas, including public services, education, places of public accommodation, housing, employment, and business. The characteristics protected under the law did not specifically include gender identity at the time the lawsuit was filed, but legislators added that category in 2023. However, at the time of the actions in the case, the law prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
Minnesota Supreme Court Holds That the Policies of USA Powerlifting Are Facially Discriminatory
Both Cooper and USA Powerlifting agreed that Minnesota’s Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on transgender status. At issue was whether the athletic organization’s actions violated the Act’s prohibitions on discrimination in business and public accommodations. USA Powerlifting stated that they “do not allow male to female transgender athletes at all.” They justified this ban by stating that the “male physiology” of these athletes gave them an unfair advantage in weight-lifting competitions
The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the organization’s policy prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in the women’s division was discriminatory on its face. As such, the policy constituted direct evidence of discrimination in violation of the state’s Human Rights Act.
However, this finding was only part of the legal analysis.
Court Holds that There May Be a Legitimate Business Purpose that Prevents Liability for Discrimination
The finding that USA Powerlifting’s ban on male-to-female transgender athletes is facially discriminatory can be viewed as affirmation for transgender athletes, but it does not indicate that all athletes have the right to participate in every competition that falls under the business, education, or public accommodation requirements of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that there is a potential statutory defense to the claim that the athletic organization violated the athlete’s rights.
Specifically, the Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination unless “the discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose. The statute does not define what constitutes a legitimate business purpose. Based on analysis of interpretations of similar federal law, the Court concludes that to establish a “legitimate business purpose under § 363A.17(3), a business must show that the discriminatory policy is reasonably necessary for it to achieve its central mission and there are no reasonable alternatives to the discriminatory policy.”
USA Powerlifting contended that it needed to provide “fair competition opportunities for similarly situated athletes,” and its business purpose in doing so was to sell memberships and collect competition fees. The organization asserted that participants must have confidence in the integrity of the competition, or they would not invest in them. They stated that the ban on transgender athletes was necessary to further this purpose because these athletes have an unfair advantage in terms of increased muscle mass, bone density, and structure, and connective tissues.
The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that USA Powerlifting’s asserted purposes could constitute grounds for an exception to the law’s anti-discrimination provisions and therefore remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the organization was liable for a violation. Additionally, the Court also declined the invitation to overrule an earlier case which held that an employer who restricted the use of employee restrooms based on biological gender did not violate the Human Rights Act.
Minnesota’s Clash with the Department of Education on Transgender Athletes
Meanwhile, although the state’s Human Rights Act addresses discrimination in education, the Court’s decision has no impact on the stand-off over federal law. The Department of Education announced some time ago that the Minnesota Department of Education and Minnesota State High School League violated Title IX by “allowing males to compete in female sports and occupy female intimate facilities.” The state was given 10 days to comply with the law, or federal funding could be withdrawn. Not surprisingly, the deadline passed without action. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued an official Advisory Opinion earlier in the year, stating that:
- The executive order that essentially requires schools to adopt rules restricting athletes from participating in sports according to the gender assigned at birth does not supersede the Minnesota Human Rights Act
- Minnesota schools would violate the state’s Human Rights Act if they do not allow students to participate in activities consistent with their gender identity
He has recently been reported as making remarks indicating a belief that segregating transgender students causes more harm than allowing them to play on the team consistent with their identity. However, school board members throughout the state remain intensely divided on the issue.
Protecting the Rights of Students Around the U.S.
It can be challenging to balance civil rights under laws such as Title IX and state laws, such as the Minnesota Human Rights Act. One factor this case illustrates is the key role that litigation often plays in defining and protecting individual rights. Courts do not address issues of legislative interpretation until individuals act to enforce their rights through litigation.
At Nesenoff & Miltenberg, we have focused on student’s rights for decades, and we closely monitor interpretations of Title IX and other laws affecting students, faculty, and staff throughout the U.S. If you have a concern about a potential violation of your rights or someone has accused you of a violation anywhere in the U.S., we invite you to call us at 212-736-4500 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation to learn more about the protection and assistance our team can provide.