The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has reinstated the case of four female athletes in Connecticut, who claim they were “deprived of honors and opportunities at elite track-and-field levels by male athletes permitted to compete against them.”
The 2nd Circuit ruling revives the lawsuit, Soule et al. v. Connecticut Association of Schools (CIAC), and allows the case to proceed in federal district court. There, the female athletes will seek “a merits ruling in favor of fairness and equal opportunities for female athletes under Title IX,” according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represent the athletes—Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti.
The plaintiffs were former high school track athletes who raced against transgender girls in events sanctioned by the CIAC. Their complaint alleged trans girls have unfair physiological advantages over their cis gender competitors, and as such, “students who are born female now have materially fewer opportunities to stand on the victory podium, fewer opportunities to participate in post-season elite competition, fewer opportunities for public recognition as champions, and a much smaller chance of setting recognized records, than students who are born male.” To remedy these purported Title IX violations, the plaintiffs-appellants sought monetary relief and injunctions to:
1. Prevent future enforcement of the Transgender Participation Policy, thereby barring transgender athletes from participating in CIAC-sponsored sports inconsistent with their biologically assigned sex; and
2. Remove athletic records/times achieved by trans athletes in sports inconsistent with their biologically assigned sex.
The district court, however, dismissed each claim on April 25, 2021, determining that the request for enjoinment became moot after Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller (the trans athletes at the center of the case) graduated in June 2020. The court further stated that the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the records were speculative, and the request for damages was barred.
In 2022, the Second Circuit ruled that the appellants’ claims that the CIAC policy deprived them of “a chance to be champions” and may affect future employment opportunities lacked standing. All four competed in state track championships and secured first-place finishes in several events, including races versus Yearwood and Miller. The court also determined there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that prospective employers evaluate applicants based on scholastic athletic achievement or its impact in the hiring process. Both theories, subsequently, failed to establish injury in-fact and redressability.
After an appeal, all 15 members of the 2nd Circuit en banc panel agreed “unanimously” that, “plaintiffs have plausibly stated an injury in fact. … the alleged denial of equal athletic opportunity and concomitant loss of publicly recognized titles and placements during track and field competitions in which they participated against and finished behind” two males identifying as females. The court further concluded “that the alleged injury is plausibly redressable by monetary and injunctive relief.” Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
In contrast, the ACLU and the ACLU of Connecticut issued the following joint statement:
“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.”
