Lawmakers Clash Over Revealing Motives Behind Transgender Legislation

PHOENIX — Arizona’s top Republican figures are appealing to a federal court to avoid disclosing their rationale behind a ban on transgender girls participating in female sports. House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen are pushing to overturn U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps’ mandate to answer questions from the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Attorney Justin Smith, representing Toma and Petersen, argues that lawmakers should be shielded from explaining their legislative intentions. This raises the stakes as the 9th Circuit’s decision could set a significant precedent.

Historically, courts seldom delve into lawmakers’ motives. However, the plaintiffs argue the ban breaches the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, necessitating an examination of potential discriminatory intent. Judge Zipps emphasized that understanding the lawmakers’ intents could reveal if the legislature acted constitutionally.

The case centers around a 2022 law requiring Arizona public and certain private school sports teams to be designated strictly as male, female, or coed, explicitly barring transgender girls from female teams. Proponents claim the law levels the competitive playing field by addressing biological differences.

Judge Zipps temporarily halted the law’s enforcement against two transgender girls, citing Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. A forthcoming decision on making this order permanent could impact similar statewide cases.

Despite differing views, Attorney General Kris Mayes has chosen not to defend the law, leaving that role to state schools chief Tom Horne, who hired a separate attorney. Horne maintains that the law protects girls from unfair competition and potential injuries, dismissing claims that prepubescent age or puberty blockers negate these advantages.

Toma and Petersen independently joined the legal battle, hiring their own counsel to advocate for their legislative interests, distinct from Horne’s. Consequently, the plaintiffs sought relevant documents and depositions from the legislators. Smith insists that entering the lawsuit doesn’t nullify legislative privilege.

Smith further maintains that a deposition would irreparably harm the legislators, contending that legislative privilege remains intact unless explicitly renounced, which he claims hasn’t occurred here.

Judge Zipps ruled that by declaring their unique legislative interests, Toma and Petersen opened themselves to scrutiny. The plaintiffs challenge the law on grounds of sex-based discrimination, thereby necessitating an examination of legislative motives.

The state must now demonstrate that the law’s sex-based classification aligns with a significant government objective, making legislative intent crucial. Judge Zipps reinforced that Title IX protections extend to transgender girls.

Regarding document production, Smith stated they’ve submitted over 1,100 pages but withheld five documents citing privilege. These documents, containing legislative communications, await court scrutiny on their validity.