ONGOING CASES
Moe v. Yost
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Two families of trans children filed a lawsuit challenging Ohio H.B. 68, which bans gender-affirming care for trans youth and prohibits trans youth from participating equally in school sports. On August 6, 2024, the court upheld the healthcare ban and vacated the temporary restraining order, allowing the ban to go into effect. Plaintiffs appealed the decision and await a ruling by the state appeals court.
B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On April 16, 2024, the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a middle school-aged trans athlete and held that a West Virginia law prohibiting trans students from participating equally in school sports violated Title IX. On November 18, 2024, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for review.
The Title IX Cases
Red states have been in a performative uproar since the Biden Administration announced new trans-inclusive changes to Title IX, which will become effective on August 1, 2024. Twenty-six republican-led states have filed seven separate lawsuits against the Biden Administration, challenging this change.
Hecox v. Little
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
In April of 2020, female athletes (both trans and cis) filed a complaint against the Idaho Governor challenging HB 500, which broadly banned trans and intersex females from participating in women’s and girls’ sports and mandated invasive medical testing to be done on girls and women whose “biological sex” was “in dispute.” The district court blocked enforcement of the law, as did the appellate court. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s stay order in Poe v. Labrador, the appellate court amended the injunction to apply only the plaintiff. Proceedings are currently stayed pending resolution of the State’s petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Soule et al. v. Connecticut Assoc. of Schools et al.
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
In 2020, four cisgender female student athletes brought a lawsuit against their schools and two trans-female student athletes, alleging that the district’s trans-inclusive athletics policy violated Title IX by allowing “male-bodied” students to compete unfairly against “biological females.” The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit reinstated it and remanded for further proceedings. The case pends now before the district court, where Defendants have moved to dismiss.