A transgender teen in Utah had the go-ahead from the state’s eligibility commission to participate in girls’ high school athletics. However, she was kept from competition by the Utah High School Activities Association, which cited President Donald Trump’s February executive order that sought to prohibit transgender girls from sports.
The revelation came during a June 2 court hearing in a lawsuit over Utah’s 2022 law that bans transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports. A judge blocked the law from taking effect, and now Third District Court Judge Keith Kelly is grappling with the future of that lawsuit. The parties were back in court to hear a motion to dismiss the case.
Whether UHSAA was justified in barring the student from competition because of Trump’s executive order is one of the central issues in the legal challenge. At the heart of the issue is what impact the president’s action has.
Attorneys for the state’s governing body of high school athletics argue the association was simply following federal law and that the entire case should be dismissed because the executive order makes it moot. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, two transgender girls and their families, argue UHSAA was in contempt of court by barring participation since there’s an injunction blocking the state law.
Many of the court documents in the case are sealed to protect the privacy of the two minors, so details are sparse.
In the April hearing on the contempt charge, attorneys appeared to allude to a situation where a transgender girl was barred from competition solely because of Trump’s order. At the time, it was not explicitly clear whether the student would have been allowed to participate otherwise.
In the latest hearing, Keith Barlow, a Utah assistant attorney general and representative for the defendants, confirmed that the student did pass the evaluation of the commission.
The Utah School Activity Eligibility Commission was a backup plan that was triggered when the law was blocked by the courts. Transgender athletes wishing to compete go before a group of politically appointed medical and sports professionals who decide on a case-by-case basis whether a student can compete.
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that some of the standards the commission has, like maximum testosterone levels for transgender girls, are stringent compared to those for higher-level athletes. It’s unknown how many students have been given or denied approval because that information is confidential under the law.
In response to Trump’s order, UHSAA came up with a new policy to bar all transgender girls from competition.
Judge Kelly asked Barlow if the new policy means all transgender girls are banned from competing, even if the girl has gone through the state’s commission and the group agreed it was fair for her to compete. Barlow said that was correct.
Amy Whelan, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, criticized UHSAA for not making the policy change public anywhere outside of court documents.
“I do think that the people of Utah have a right to know what's going on and whether this policy really does exist, or whether it was created for the purposes of this motion and this proceeding,” Whelan said.
The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit, Barlow said, because they wanted to compete in sports and listed the harms of not having those opportunities. But now, the state’s attorney argued, there is no way for transgender girls to participate or compete unless the president’s executive order is amended or set aside. That means the court is no longer able to give the plaintiffs “meaningful relief.”
“The court could remove one barrier, but there's another barrier still there,” Barlow said. “That would be removed based on speculation that the other barrier will cease to exist at some point.”
Whelan repeatedly argued that a presidential executive order does not have the same force as federal law, as the defendants argued. Trump’s order, Whelan said, was merely an expression of how his administration is interpreting Title IX. Whelan said it is up to Congress to make laws and the judiciary to interpret federal law.
The state and the high school activities association, Whelan also argued, had failed to meet their burden of proof to show that the case is moot. A permanent injunction was still necessary, she said, because the ban is still law in Utah and would be enforced, if not for the court’s order.
Barlow said UHSAA plans to follow Trump’s order, unless it is overturned or changed.
Kelly did not rule from the bench on either of the issues at hand — whether UHSAA is in contempt of court or whether the case should be dismissed. The judge said he’ll issue a written decision in “due course,” but did not give a specific timeline.
