Minnesota suit to protect trans athletes falls flat in victory for Trump

A federal judge left the door open for the state to reintroduce its claims should the government take “final agency action.”MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — A federal judge sided with the Trump administration by largely dismissing Minnesota’s lawsuit challenging the government’s interpretation of Title IX.Minnesota pushed back in a suit filed in April 2025 against President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting transgender athletes and subsequent findings from government agencies that the state is violating Title IX, the landmark gender equity legislation of 1972, by allowing such participation in women’s sports.Minnesota law forbids discrimination based on gender identity, which the state argues conflicts with the government’s demands.In his 44-page order issued late Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud found the underlying legal issue ripe enough to grant standing, but he ultimately held Minnesota failed to prove the government took any final agency action that could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act.The Donald Trump appointee noted the state will not face clear legal consequences until there is a hearing where an agency or a court finds Minnesota in violation of Title IX — ruling a letter of findings from the government alone does not impose severe penalties.“The agencies’ statement of their position regarding Title IX’s correct interpretation does not force Minnesota to choose between incurring penalties of any kind or engaging in what it believes is lawful conduct,” Tostrud said in the ruling.The judge also dismissed Minnesota’s ultra vires claims about overreach, finding the government cannot have acted in conflict with Title IX when a genuine dispute exists nationwide over whether Title IX prohibits transgender athletes in women’s sports.“At best, Minnesota has plausibly alleged that ‘an agency has arguably reached a conclusion which does not comport with the law,’ but this is insufficient,” he said in the ruling.Tostrud did allow Minnesota’s spending clause claim to proceed, noting Minnesota faces billions in potential federal withholding based on conditions that are unclear and could result in constitutional violations by discriminating against transgender individuals.“It may be that Title IX does in fact prohibit transgender women and girls from participating on sports teams designated for women and girls or from using restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity,” he said in the order. “But that does not mean Minnesota had sufficiently clear notice that Title IX contained that prohibition when it decided to accept federal funding.”On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an order declaring it was the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” — following that with another weeks later directly targeting transgender participation in women’s sports.The latter order included a directive to rescind all funds from educational programs that “deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”Minnesota claims the federal government is discriminating by requiring the recipients of federal funding to categorically ban all transgender women and girls from playing sports, arguing the attempt to force states to comply with certain policies violates the U.S. Constitution’s anti-commandeering principles.In line with Trump’s directive, the U.S. Department of Education investigated the Minnesota High School League and found the state’s practices violated Title IX by allowing biological males to compete in female sports and use girls locker rooms — later filing a lawsuit against the league and the state in March.While the government sought a court determination finding Minnesota lacked standing, Tostrud said the existence of the Education Department’s suit contradicts that argument.“The United States affirmatively invoked the court’s jurisdiction seeking resolution of essentially the same issues at the core of this case,” he said in the order. “It is difficult to understand how that case might be ripe, but this one is not.”Justice Department attorneys argued in April that, despite findings and several ongoing investigations, no “credible enforcement threat” has been made to allow Minnesota to challenge the government — a position Tostrud agreed with given the lack of action over the entirety of the lawsuit’s existence.While largely ruling against the state, Tostrud’s dismissal is without prejudice, meaning Minnesota may reintroduce its claims should the government take final action imposing consequences on the state and its departments.Though Tostrud dismissed Minnesota’s claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, he allowed the state has the right to seek such judgment against Trump.“Though there is room for disagreement, I conclude that the president may be the subject of declaratory relief,” he said in the ruling.Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison told Courthouse News, “I’m pleased that a major constitutional claim against President Trump will move forward and I look forward to proving in court that the president violated the Constitution.”The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads