Attorney General Ellison prevails again in defense of transgender athletes’ participation in school sports
8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court denial of preliminary injunction in lawsuit aimed at overturning Minnesota’s protections for transgender school athletes
April 16, 2026 (SAINT PAUL) — Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has prevailed at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in his defense of Minnesota’s protections for transgender school athletes. Last year, plaintiffs known as Female Athletes United challenged Minnesota’s inclusive sports policy, which allows transgender youth to play sports consistent with their gender identity. The district court denied that preliminary injunction, and yesterday, the 8th Circuit upheld that denial today, agreeing with the district court that Female Athletes United does not have a private right of action under Title IX that might entitle it to a preliminary injunction.
"Two courts have now ruled that these plaintiffs have no right to a preliminary injunction in this case. I'm proud to defend Minnesota’s inclusive legal protections for student athletes of all genders against anyone who would force us to discriminate. I look forward to continuing to protect Minnesota’s students in court and against bullies anywhere,” Attorney General Ellison said.
Timeline of case
Since 1993, the Minnesota Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity in education. Consistent with the Act, since 2016, the Minnesota State High School League — which the Legislature has authorized to set policy for school sports — has had a by-law that allows student athletes to participate in arts and athletics in a manner consistent with their gender identity. The by-law has been consistently interpreted to mean that transgender student athletes may compete on sports teams that match their gender identity The League’s bylaw is necessary to comply with the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits gender-identity discrimination in education.
On February 5, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that directed the U.S. Department of Justice to launch Title IX enforcement actions against institutions that allow transgender girls and women to compete on girls’ and women’s school sports teams. (Title IX is a 1972 federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in publicly funded educational institutions.) The same executive order directed federal agencies to rescind funding to entities that refused to adopt the federal government’s policy. A week later, the U.S. Department of Education announced it was investigating MSHSL for allegedly violating Title IX.
Following the announcement of the federal investigation, the MSHSL requested that Attorney General Ellison issue a formal legal opinion about whether complying with the executive order would violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act. On February 20, 2025, Attorney General Ellison’s office released its formal opinion that the executive order does not supersede Minnesota law and that complying with it and prohibiting students from participating in extracurricular activities consistent with their gender identity would violate the MHRA. The Attorney General’s opinion on the matter has the force of law in Minnesota unless or until a court rules otherwise.
On May 19, 2025, a group of plaintiffs calling themselves Female Athletes United sued Attorney General Ellison and a variety of other defendants — the commissioners of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and Department of Education, the executive director of the Minnesota State High School League, and three school districts — alleging that the by-law violates Title IX. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs focus on a successful transgender athlete known as Jane Doe.
The plaintiffs moved the next day for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. Yesterday, the 8th Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It held there is no right to sue under Title IX for claims that do not allege intentional discrimination, and plaintiffs did not allege any intentional discrimination by the State in adopting the by-law.
The case now proceeds in federal district court.
