- A Utah judge will decide if a lawsuit against Utah's transgender athlete ban proceeds.
- The case challenges a 2022 Utah law preventing athletes from competing by gender identity.
- Arguments focus on a Supreme Court ruling and an executive order from President Donald Trump directed at transgender athletes.
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah judge will decide by the end of this month whether a case against Utah's transgender athlete ban can move forward in light of an executive order from the White House and a June U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions.
The case, which has stretched across several years, stems from a 2022 Utah law preventing high school athletes from participating in sports on a team that doesn't match their biological sex. Several anonymous athletes sued over the law, and a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking portions of it in August 2022.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued in April that the Utah High School Activities Association violated the injunction pausing the transgender athlete ban when it adopted a new policy blocking transgender athletes from playing, and asked a judge to hold the association in contempt of court. The association made the new policy after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February blocking federal education funds to entities that "deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities."
The association argued that it was simply complying with Trump's order, not trying to enforce HB11, but the plaintiffs say the policy ran afoul of the injunction.
Following a lengthy hearing on April 30, 3rd District Judge Keith Kelly asked for further arguments from each side.
The parties convened in an online hearing again on Wednesday to discuss how a recent Supreme Court ruling might impact the case, after a majority of justices ruled that individual judges don't have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions.
Kelly asked attorneys for both sides whether they believe that the ruling changes whether the Utah High School Activities Association can be held in contempt of court for adopting its transgender athlete policy and if the ruling has any impact on the scope of the injunction blocking Utah's transgender athlete law.
Attorneys for the association argue that Trump's executive order on transgender athletes and Utah's law are separate issues, so even if the state courts side with the plaintiffs and overturn HB11, the association could still bar transgender athletes from participating under the executive order. The defendants say this makes the alleged harm "no longer redressable" and have asked the judge to dismiss the case.
"The association is not trying to justify or hide behind anything," said Keith Barlow, one of the attorneys for the defense. "The association acted reasonably in following the executive order."
The plaintiffs, however, cited Department of Justice guidance that executive orders do not constitute federal law or preempt state laws and argued that the recent Supreme Court ruling has no impact on whether the Utah High School Activities Association violated the injunction against enforcing HB11.
Attorney Tamara Lemmon said the case is about protecting the civil rights of transgender girls and asked the judge to send a message that "Utah citizens can rely on Utah courts to uphold the rule of law in this state."
Kelly said he would come to a decision on the motion to dismiss the case and the motion to hold the defendants in contempt of court before the end of August. If the case is not dismissed, he scheduled a follow-up hearing for Aug. 27.
