Circuit Court Strikes Down Arizona’s Ban on Transgender Female Athletes in Schools

PHOENIX — In a significant ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared on Monday that Arizona has not substantiated a valid rationale for its law effectively barring transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports. This decision comes amidst ongoing litigation concerning the state’s 2022 legislative enactment that prohibits individuals assigned male at birth from joining teams labeled for women or girls.

The court’s 55-page judgment specifically addresses the case of two transgender girls in Arizona—one enrolled at Kyrene Aprende Middle School and another at Tucson’s Gregory School. Both students are undergoing hormone treatment to suppress physical advantages, and the judges asserted there was no evidence indicating they possessed an athletic edge over their cisgender peers.

This ruling temporarily permits these two students to participate in girls’ sports as the legal battle unfolds. Additionally, a U.S. Supreme Court justice recently ordered key Arizona lawmakers, including House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, to provide testimony and documents regarding the law’s enactment.

Rachel Berg, an attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the ruling’s broader implications. “The 9th Circuit recognized that the law is unconstitutional because it categorically bans all transgender girls from participating in school sports, irrespective of individual circumstances,” she stated.

Meanwhile, Arizona’s schools chief, Tom Horne, voiced his disappointment with the ruling, labeling the 9th Circuit as “very left wing” and noted that it is often reversed by higher courts. He expressed intent to escalate the case to the Supreme Court if necessary, suggesting the ruling sidelined critical evidence related to the purported biological advantages of transgender girls.

Judge Morgan Christen, however, countered this view, asserting that the evidence presented during the trial did not support claims of inherent advantages for transgender athletes. She noted the law fails to take into account individual circumstances, impacting students from kindergarten to graduate levels, while casting a wide net over various sports, including non-contact activities.

Furthermore, the ruling highlighted the contrasting approach of the Arizona Interscholastic Association, which previously permitted transgender girls to compete on a case-by-case basis, assessing each request through a committee of experts.

The court pointed out that in the years preceding the law, only a handful of transgender students were approved to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity, a tiny fraction of the over 170,000 student athletes in Arizona.

Judge Christen emphasized that the state law undermines the NCAA’s more nuanced regulations, which consider individual hormone levels and offer a tailored approach to transgender athlete participation. The Arizona law, she wrote, unfairly imposes a blanket rule affecting a diverse group of individuals, including those who have not experienced male puberty.

In contrast, Horne defended the law as necessary, claiming boys generally outperform girls in athletics, especially at younger ages. He pointed to anecdotal observations from playgrounds as evidence for his stance.

Despite Horne’s assertions regarding biological advantages, Christen remarked that the studies he cited do not conclusively attribute physical differences to biology alone. Rather, societal factors often play a significant role in athletic performance disparities.

Ultimately, the court identified that the law discriminates explicitly against transgender women and girls, creating an inequitable playing field by allowing all other students to compete according to their gender identity. As noted in the initial ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps, the two plaintiffs demonstrate abilities comparable to other girls their age, and being forced to compete on boys’ teams could be deeply damaging to their self-esteem.