Soule et al. v. Connecticut Assoc. of Schools et al.

ConnecticutDistrict of ConnecticutSecond CircuitTitle IXTrans YouthAthletics

May 5

Written By Mack Karbon

Intervenor Defendant and Track & Field All-Star, Andraya Yearwood

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

On remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Case No. 3:20-cv-00201-RNC (CT Dist. Ct.)
Case No. 21-1365 (2d Cir.)

STATUS: ONGOING

Case Information

In 2013, the conference governing interscholastic sports in Connecticut made the decision to permit high school students to participate in school-sponsored athletics consistent with the gender identity established in their school records.

In February of 2020, four cisgender female student athletes filed a complaint against the conference and member school districts, alleging that allowing transgender girls to participate in girls’ track and field deprived them of equal athletic opportunities in violation of Title IX. The plaintiffs asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent transgender girls from competing in events scheduled to take place during the 2020 Spring Outdoor Track season. Two transgender female athletes intervened as defendants.

District Court Decision

In April of 2021, Judge Robert N. Chatigny, writing for the district court, dismissed the case for mootness. In the decision, Chatigny stated:

[T]he request to enjoin enforcement of the CIAC policy has become moot due to the graduation of Yearwood and Miller, whose participation in girls’ track provided the impetus for this action. There is no indication that Smith and Nicoletti will encounter competition by a transgender student in a CIAC-sponsored event next season. Defendants’ counsel have represented that they know of no transgender student who will be participating in girls’ track at that time. It is still theoretically possible that a transgender student could attempt to do so. Even then, however, a legally cognizable injury to these plaintiffs would depend on a transgender student running in the same events and achieving substantially similar times. Such “speculative contingencies” are insufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III.

Judge Chatigny further held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction requiring changes in the defendants’ racing and time records because they failed demonstrate redressability. He lastly barred the plaintiffs’ claims for money damages.

Appeal to the Second Circuit

On December 16, 2022, a three-judge panel for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the district court’s decision dismissing the case. The plaintiff-appellants requested a rehearing en banc, which was granted. On December 15, 2023, the en banc court issued a decision vacating the district court’s dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The en banc decision did not make a determination on the case’s merits; rather, it decided the very narrow question of whether the plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim for relief, a threshold determination that must be made before the substance of the claims can be debated.

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, re-alleging violations of Title IX. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The case pends once again before Judge Chatigny. Follow for updates.