Two transgender girls in New Hampshire brought the first legal action against President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender athletes in women’s sports on Wednesday. The amended complaint is an expansion of a lawsuit filed last August, after a state bill prohibiting transgender girls from participating in female sports was signed into law.
Last September, a federal judge granted the girls’ preliminary injunction against the law—permitting them to compete while the lawsuit continued. Now, however, the highschoolers claim Trump’s executive orders threaten their ability to participate despite the judge’s preliminary relief.
The executive order cites Title IX of the Education Amendments Act and case law as justification for prohibiting the participation of transgender women in women’s sports. It directs the Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement actions and rescinds federal funds from schools that do not comply with the ban. The amended lawsuit, however, claims the ban “wrongly interprets Title IX to exclude protections for transgender people, in direct contradiction to this Court’s order” on the girls’ preliminary injunction.
In addition to the existing charges against the state defendants, the amended suit claims the executive order violates equal protection rights, contradicts statutory law, and exceeds the authority of the president. The plaintiffs argue that the executive orders are discriminatory on their face “because they direct agencies to target investigations and rescind federal funding for entities whose sports programs include transgender girls on girls’ sports teams.” The complaint claims this not only contravenes the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause but also contradicts Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination in sports participation “on the basis of sex.” Finally, it claims the president cannot unilaterally amend or cancel congressional appropriations, as that exceeds the powers granted to the executive branch.
Several other lawsuits challenging President Trump’s actions have also claimed he has exceeded executive authority. Among these are challenges to the president’s suspension of refugee admissions and termination of federal funding for gender-affirming care (which also argues that the president “cannot directly and unilaterally amend or cancel appropriations Congress has duly enacted”). The American Bar Association released a statement this week criticizing the president’s actions, particularly his efforts to undermine congressional authority by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
DC dispatch: a veteran Inspector General stands up for the rule of law, and is escorted from her office
Peru dispatch: after an alleged prostitution network is discovered in Parliament, politicians blame women
Honoring JURIST’s Publisher Emeritus: From Mauritius to Myanmar, Small Stories Find Global Resonance
Democracy Isn’t Trump’s to Dismantle: A Legal Scholar’s Warning
Explainer: The Growing Tension Between Trump and Federal Courts
Explainer: Understanding the South Africa Land-Reform Law that Provoked Trump’s Ire
Taiwan opposition leader indicted
On February 13, 2007, Ma Ying-jeou, the chairman of Taiwan’s opposition party was indicted on embezzlement charges from his time as Mayor of Taipei. That same day, Ma stepped down as leader of the Kuomintang Party and proceeded to announce his candidacy for the Presidency of Taiwan. In the indictment, Ma was accused by the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office of embezzlement. He was ultimately acquitted of these charges by the Supreme Court and elected President of Taiwan in 2008.
Legal codifier David Dudley Field born
David Dudley Field, a champion of legal codification in the United States, was born in Haddam, Connecticut, on February 13, 1805. Learn more about the life and career of David Dudley Field.
Transgender teens challenge Trump ban on participating in women’s sports – JURIST
Related articles
