A US District Court judge who initially dismissed a lawsuit back in 2021 challenging Connecticut’s policy that allows trans students to compete on school sports teams has reversed his decision.
Reports CT Insider:
Plaintiffs — biologically female track athletes Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith and Ashley Nicoletti — have “alleged a cornucopia of injures” caused by the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s policy allowing athletes to compete based on their gender identity.
The four female athletes are arguing that the policy deprived them of wins and athletic opportunities by requiring them to compete with two transgender sprinters.
The defendants in the case, which include the CIAC, multiple Connecticut school boards, including Danbury and Canton, and sprinters Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, two transgender student athletes represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, had sought a dismissal of the lawsuit after it was sent back to U.S. District Court by the Court of Appeals.
But in a 55-page ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny, who initially dismissed the lawsuit in 2021, switched his stance, declining to dismiss the legal action a second time while also pointing out there is “little guidance” on how courts should deal with the issue of transgender athletes.
“This case presents a direct conflict between two interests protected by Title IX: the interest in providing fair competition for biological females, which has long been recognized as a significant governmental interest under Title IX, and the interest in providing transgender girls with opportunities to participate in girls’ sports, which is now protected by a Connecticut state statute,” Chatigny said in his ruling.
The judge also said that when compared to athletes who require accommodations to compete under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there is no longstanding record of cases and ruling to draw on when considering balancing the rights of all the athletes involved in the case.
“This balancing requires an adequately developed record,” he said. “As no such record exists here, it would be premature to attempt to conduct such a balancing at this time.”
The plaintiffs are being represented by the Alliance for Defending Freedom, which successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Colorado bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Read the complete CT Insider story here.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today for a free subscription to Boston Spirit magazine, New England’s premier LGBT magazine. We will send you a copy of Boston Spirit 6 times per year and we never sell/rent our subscriber information. Click HERE to sign up!
