Supreme Court Sidesteps Arizona’s Transgender Sports Law Debate
As the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its session on Monday, it left unresolved a contentious issue regarding the participation of transgender girls in women’s sports in Arizona. This decision not to intervene leaves Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act in a state of uncertainty.
The 2022 statute mandates that sports teams specifically for women and girls exclude students identified as male at birth. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supported a previous ruling that allowed two transgender girls to continue playing, declaring the ban discriminatory since it singularly affected transgender girls.
While the Supreme Court recently permitted Tennessee to restrict gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, the Arizona case presented distinct arguments, notably the claim of discriminatory intent behind the law, which was absent in the Tennessee ruling.
For now, the two girls involved, attending the Gregory School in Tucson and Kyrene Aprende Middle School in Chandler, remain eligible to participate on girls’ teams. The overarching legal question is whether Arizona can enforce its law and to what extent.
Proponents of the 2022 law argue it addresses perceived unfair advantages due to inherent physical differences between males and females. However, the law does not impact most athletes and overrides the Arizona Interscholastic Association’s previous policy, which allowed transgender girls to join girls’ teams only after securing approval from a panel of experts. This approval was infrequent, with only seven out of 12 requests granted over the past decade, from a pool of about 170,000 student athletes annually.
The lawsuit, initiated in 2023, involves two transgender girls who are prepubescent and on puberty blockers. U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing the law on them, noting their athletic abilities are similar to peers and that playing on boys’ teams would be “humiliating and embarrassing.”
The Supreme Court currently considers whether to review the 9th Circuit’s support of Zipps’ decision. Appellate Judge Morgan Christen highlighted that the ban applies universally, ignoring individual circumstances and affecting all levels of education and types of sports.
State schools chief Tom Horne advocates for a blanket rule, citing studies suggesting prepubescent boys may have physical advantages over girls. However, Christen noted these studies do not definitively attribute differences to biological factors or confirm competitive advantages.
Moreover, the Arizona law allows cisgender men, boys, and transgender men and boys to participate in sports aligned with their gender identity, while only transgender women and girls face restrictions. This discriminatory aspect, as highlighted by Christen, awaits further scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Attorney Rachel Berg, representing the transgender girls, argues for withholding Supreme Court intervention until Judge Zipps issues a final ruling on permanently blocking the law. This case, fully briefed, remains undecided.
The broader legal landscape shows the Supreme Court’s recent endorsement of Tennessee’s regulation on gender-affirming care, which differs from the Arizona case’s emphasis on alleged discriminatory legislative intent. This key distinction might influence the eventual outcome.
Depositions and documents from Arizona’s lawmakers, obtained through court orders, could reveal whether the law was crafted with illegal discrimination in mind. These materials are currently sealed, pending further judicial review.
—
Read More Arizona News
