National Women’s Law Center Intervenes In Defense of Transgender College Athletes
ATLANTA – As part of its 50-year mission defending the rights of women and girls under Title IX, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) seeking to intervene in a lawsuit demanding the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) ban transgender women from participating in women’s college sports teams and using restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.
In Gaines v. NCAA, several athletes and former athletes allege the NCAA’s already strict policies governing sports eligibility for trans student-athletes discriminate against cisgender women. Under political pressure, a few years ago, the NCAA its own long-term, previous policy that offered a clear path to inclusion for trans women in college who were receiving gender-affirming medical care. Yet, the plaintiffs--falsely purporting to speak on behalf of a national class of all past, present, and future NCAA women athletes--want to force the NCAA to categorically ban women and girls who are transgender from playing sports. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Georgia, and Cooley LLP, NWLC is asking to be officially joined as a party to the case and has filed a motion to dismiss, citing severe flaws in legal and factual statements presented in the complaint.
Women athletes from across the country have voiced support for the inclusion of trans college athletes, including the iconic Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Sue Bird, and the reigning champion NCAA Women’s Basketball Coach Dawn Staley.
“As a women’s rights organization that has advocated for strong Title IX enforcement since its inception, we feel called upon to defend against extremist attacks on our trans sisters–attacks that weaponize and distort the language of women’s rights to justify discrimination and bigotry. Let me be clear: we firmly support the inclusion of women and girls who are transgender in all aspects of school–including sports, restrooms, and locker rooms–as a matter of both civil rights law and human rights,” said Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors and Senior Counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. “We are proud to be entering this important legal battle to represent the wider women’s rights movement and ensure extremists cannot turn Title IX on its head and misuse it as a weapon to enforce bullying and exclusion of students who want — and deserve — to play college sports with their peers.”
“This lawsuit is not only an attack on trans women and girls–it’s an attack on all women and girls,” said Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Policing who is, or isn't, a woman subjects all women and girls to intrusive and humiliating scrutiny. In states across the country, we’ve seen cis and trans girls alike subjected to invasive questioning and harassment because their hair is too short, or they perform too well, to be considered ‘real girls.’ Women's sports are critical because they provide freedom from pressure to comply with expectations about how women should look and behave, but this lawsuit diminishes that freedom and joy.”
“We are proud to represent the NWLC in standing up against this unfair attack on transgender women and girls,” said Kathleen Hartnett of Cooley LLP. “We look forward to showing the Court that Plaintiffs’ challenge is unfounded and that anti-transgender discrimination has no place in college athletics or anywhere else.”
“The ACLU of Georgia advocates for the right of all Georgians to be treated equitably and to freely participate in all aspects of society. Exclusionary and divisive policies on who can compete in women's sports harm all women, cisgender and transgender alike,” said Nneka Ewulonu, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Georgia.
“It’s no coincidence that the activists who brought this case think women should be solely defined by our ability to carry children,” added Calvo-Friedman. “This case is part of a broader, extreme effort to control women’s bodies and lives, but we won’t let them succeed in selling women out.”
If the request is approved by the federal district court in Georgia, NWLC will have full participation in all future proceedings, including any potential trial.
Alongside bans on gender-affirming healthcare and abortion bans, statewide policies that categorically ban trans athletes from participation have passed in 23 states in just the last three years. In August 2023, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of Idaho’s ban on transgender athletes, and, in April 2024, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request to enforce West Virginia’s state ban against Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 13-year-old trans girl and middle school track athlete. The Attorney General of West Virginia has to seek a Supreme Court review of the latter ruling.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090