Two transgender girls in New Hampshire are challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order that prohibits transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. The lawsuit represents the first legal confrontation to this executive order, expanding on a previous lawsuit from last August, following the enactment of a state law banning transgender girls from competing in female sports. A federal judge had previously granted a preliminary injunction, allowing the girls to compete while the lawsuit is ongoing. However, the recent executive order is perceived as a new threat to their participation rights, regardless of the court’s initial relief.
The executive order leans on Title IX of the Education Amendments Act as a justification for barring transgender women from participating in women’s sports. It urges the Department of Education to prioritize the enforcement of Title IX, while threatening to rescind federal funds from non-compliant schools. The amended complaint argues that this interpretation is incorrect, conflicting with the court’s earlier order, and fails to protect transgender individuals under Title IX.
The lawsuit further claims violations of equal protection rights, inconsistencies with statutory law, and a breach of presidential authority. The plaintiffs allege that the orders are inherently discriminatory as they specifically target investigations and threaten funding withdrawal from entities with inclusive policies. The order is said to infringe on the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX’s gender discrimination prohibition. Additionally, critics argue the executive overreach as the President allegedly transgresses constitutional boundaries by altering congressional appropriations unilaterally.
This legal action adds to a series of challenges opposing President Trump’s executive decisions, including his attempts to suspend refugee admissions and end federal funding for gender-affirming care. Opponents, including the American Bar Association, have expressed concerns over the President’s actions, stating they undermine congressional authority by trying to bypass or undo financial appropriations already enacted by Congress (JURIST).