Court Overturns Ban on Transgender Girls Competing in Girls’ Sports

PHOENIX — On Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Arizona’s law that bans transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports, declaring the state failed to provide a legitimate rationale for this prohibition.

The 55-page decision, issued by a three-judge panel, dismissed claims made by state schools chief Tom Horne regarding the necessity of the 2022 law. This law clearly states that teams designated for women or girls “may not be open to students of the male sex,” which refers strictly to a student’s sex assigned at birth based on anatomical characteristics.

While the ruling primarily impacts two transgender girls—one from Kyrene Aprende Middle School and another from the Gregory School in Tucson—its implications extend dramatically. Both students have received hormone-blocking treatment, and there was no evidence suggesting either possessed a physical advantage over their female peers.

The court’s decision allows these girls to compete in girls’ sports as the legal battle unfolds. Recently, a U.S. Supreme Court justice determined that Arizona’s legislative leaders, including House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, must provide testimony and documents regarding their motivations behind the law.

Rachel Berg, an attorney representing the two girls through the National Center for Lesbian Rights, emphasized the ruling’s significance. She highlighted that the 9th Circuit deemed the law unconstitutional for imposing a blanket ban on all transgender girls without considering individual circumstances.

Horne, however, expressed no surprise at this outcome, criticizing the 9th Circuit as “very left wing” and suggesting that the only chance for victory lies at the Supreme Court level.

He further alleged that the ruling overlooked his evidence about the supposed biological advantages of transgender girls, regardless of their age. Judge Morgan Christen, writing for the court, firmly stated that the evidence presented does not substantiate Horne’s claims.

The judge noted that the law fails to consider individual circumstances and negatively impacts students across all grade levels and types of sports, including intramurals. Christen pointedly remarked, “The ban turns entirely on a student’s transgender or cisgender status, and not at all on other factors like levels of circulating testosterone.”

Previously, the Arizona Interscholastic Association managed decisions regarding transgender athletes on a case-by-case basis. Their policy permitted transgender girls to join girls’ teams once a committee of experts determined such requests were valid and posed no health risks.

Christen remarked on the scarcity of transgender athletes approved by the AIA, indicating that only seven students had been sanctioned to play as their identified gender over the past decade.

Moreover, the law disregards the NCAA’s regulations, which require sport-specific evaluations of transgender athletes’ hormone levels. Christen criticized Arizona’s legislation for imposing a rigid, one-size-fits-all rule that inadequately addresses transgender athletes’ diverse situations.

In his assertions, Horne maintained that there is reasoning behind a blanket rule. He referred to observable advantages boys demonstrate over girls in athletic capabilities, even before puberty.

The courts, however, found Horne’s arguments unconvincingly simplistic. Christen pointed out that the studies he referenced did not attribute differences in strength and physical attributes purely to biological factors. Instead, they often linked these variations to societal influences that encourage athleticism in boys more than in girls.

Furthermore, Christen remarked on indications that Horne’s cited studies are flawed, highlighting that those studies focusing on body mass and strength had participants who underwent only partial hormone suppression.

Additionally, the law inadvertently allows various genders to participate in sports corresponding to their identities, creating a discriminatory framework that targets solely transgender women and girls.

Christen referenced prior findings from U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps, who initially ruled in favor of the two transgender girls. Zipps had determined that the girls possessed athletic capabilities akin to their female peers and that competing on boys’ teams would be demeaning.

The court concluded that participating in teams opposing one’s gender identity equates to conversion efforts, a concept widely condemned by medical organizations as unethical and dangerous.