The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that Arizona’s 2022 ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports lacks a valid justification. In a 55-page decision, a three-judge panel rejected claims by Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who argued that the law, which restricts teams designated for women or girls to students assigned female at birth, is necessary to maintain fairness in sports. The law’s definition of “sex” relies strictly on the one assigned at birth.
The ruling currently affects two transgender girls: one attending Kyrene Aprende Middle School and the other attending Gregory School, a private institution in Tucson. Both girls have undergone hormone-blocking treatments to prevent male puberty. The panel found no evidence that either of the girls had any physical advantages over cisgender girls. The court’s decision allows the girls to participate in sports that align with their gender identity as litigation continues, raising broader questions about the constitutionality of Arizona’s law.
Context and Legal Battle
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), which is representing the two girls, challenged the law that forbids all transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports. Rachel Berg, an attorney with NCLR, emphasized that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling sets a precedent for other transgender youth in similar situations. “The court recognized that the law is unconstitutional because it’s a categorical ban on all transgender girls, regardless of their individual circumstances,” Berg said. “Just because someone is transgender doesn’t mean they have an athletic advantage.”
While Monday’s decision only permits these two girls to participate in girls’ sports for now, it has far-reaching implications. The lawsuit argues that Arizona’s law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational settings. The legal process will continue to unfold as further testimony is gathered.
In a development last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, key advocates for the law, must testify about their motives and turn over documents related to the bill’s approval. This move signals the high-profile nature of the case and the potential consequences for future legislation surrounding transgender rights.
Reactions and Justifications
Horne, who has been a vocal supporter of the law, expressed frustration with the ruling, saying, “The Ninth Circuit is very left-wing… They’re the most reversed circuit in the country.” Horne anticipates that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide the case, and he is hoping for a different result.
Horne also argued that biological differences give transgender girls an inherent advantage over cisgender girls in sports. However, the appellate court disagreed, with Judge Morgan Christen writing that the evidence presented failed to support such claims. Christen pointed out that the law’s blanket ban does not account for individual circumstances or consider factors like circulating testosterone levels, a significant oversight.
In fact, the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA) previously handled transgender athlete participation on a case-by-case basis. Under the AIA’s policy, transgender girls could join girls’ teams if a committee of experts determined there was no improper motive and no health risks to the athlete. This policy, according to the court, had only approved seven transgender athletes over the span of 12 years, a negligible number compared to the 170,000 students who participate in Arizona sports annually.
Judge Christen also highlighted how the Arizona law overrides National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) guidelines, which take a sport-by-sport approach and require transgender athletes to document their testosterone levels at the start of and throughout the season. The Arizona law, by contrast, adopts a “one-size-fits-all” policy, regardless of factors such as age, hormone treatments, or the type of sport.
Broader Legal Landscape
This ruling is part of a broader trend across the U.S., where courts are grappling with the legality of laws restricting transgender rights. Arizona’s sports ban is just one of several laws that have faced legal challenges in recent years. As more states pass laws regulating transgender athletes, the federal courts will continue to play a critical role in determining their constitutionality.
Arizona’s ban, like those in other states, has been criticized for targeting transgender girls while allowing transgender boys, cisgender boys, and cisgender girls to participate in teams that match their gender identity. Judge Christen’s ruling explicitly called out this discrepancy, noting that the law discriminates solely against transgender girls.
“The act discriminates on its face based on transgender status,” Christen wrote, adding that the state’s justification that transgender girls could participate in boys’ teams was not sufficient. U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps, who initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, previously found that requiring transgender girls to play on boys’ teams would be “humiliating and embarrassing” and that such participation would be akin to gender identity conversion efforts, which medical associations consider harmful.
Growing Divide on Transgender Rights
Arizona’s battle over transgender rights extends beyond sports. In a separate but related case, U.S. District Court Judge James Soto recently ruled that Arizona cannot deny requests to change the sex on an individual’s birth certificate solely because the person has not undergone surgery. This ruling challenged Arizona’s rigid requirement for transgender individuals to have surgery before legally amending their birth certificates.
Soto’s decision reinforces the right to self-identify and challenges the state’s argument that birth certificates must reflect the sex assigned at birth. This ruling is seen as a major step forward for transgender rights, as it acknowledges the psychological and social harm that comes from forcing individuals to present identification documents that do not reflect their true gender.
While Arizona officials like Horne argue that these rulings pose risks to institutions like women’s sports, advocates for transgender rights maintain that the focus should be on fairness and inclusion. The inconsistency between Arizona’s policy on birth certificates and sports participation highlights a growing divide in the state’s approach to transgender rights.
Impacts on Transgender Youth
For the two plaintiffs and other transgender youth, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling brings relief. Helen Doe, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, said, “With this ruling, our daughter can continue to play with her friends, make new friends, and experience all the benefits that school sports have to offer.”
Kate Roe, the mother of the other plaintiff, echoed this sentiment, expressing gratitude for the court’s decision: “Megan is over the moon and immensely relieved to learn of the court’s decision allowing her to play the sport she loves on the team that has always welcomed her as one of their own.”
These families, along with the NCLR, believe the ruling represents an important step in the fight for transgender equality. As the case progresses, it could establish a powerful legal precedent for transgender rights across the country.
The Bottom Line
The ongoing legal battles in Arizona underscore the complexities and challenges of balancing transgender rights with concerns over fairness in sports. With federal courts increasingly called upon to weigh in, the fate of transgender athletes in Arizona — and across the nation — hangs in the balance. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling provides hope for many transgender youth, but the legal fight is far from over.
Arizona Superintendent Horne has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, ensuring that the question of transgender rights in sports will continue to be a focal point of national debate in the coming months.
