617 F.Supp.3d 950
S.D. Ind.2022Background
- Indiana enacted Ind. Code § 20-33-13-4 effective July 1, 2022, forbidding a male (based on sex at birth) from participating on teams designated female/women/girls.
- Plaintiff A.M. is a 10-year-old transgender girl: diagnosed with gender dysphoria, on puberty blockers, and obtained a state court change of name and birth-certificate gender marker to female; she played on an IPS girls' softball team in 2021.
- IPS informed A.M.'s family that, under § 20-33-13-4, A.M. cannot play on the girls' softball team for the upcoming season.
- A.M. sued IPS and its Superintendent asserting Title IX and Equal Protection claims and moved for a preliminary injunction to allow her to play; the State of Indiana intervened opposing relief; IPS took no position.
- The Court considered motions to permit amici and to exclude expert testimony before ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for leave for five female athletes to file amicus brief | Amici unnecessary; A.M. did not respond | State: amici offer unique perspective on harms to biological females and public interest | Denied — court found amici would not aid decision focused on parties' interests |
| Motions to exclude expert testimony | A.M.: exclude State experts (Cantor, Hilton, Lundberg) as unqualified/unreliable | State: exclude parts of A.M.'s expert (Fortenberry) for incomplete disclosure; defends its experts' qualifications | Denied as moot — court limited reliance to Fortenberry's uncontested background points and declined to resolve dueling expert disputes for the PI ruling |
| Whether § 20-33-13-4 violates Title IX / entitlement to preliminary injunction | A.M.: discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination under Title IX (relying on Whitaker and Bostock); injunctive relief necessary to avoid irreparable harm | State: Title IX contemplates binary biological sex; Bostock and Whitaker distinguishable; statute preserves girls' opportunities and addresses biological sex at birth | Granted — court found A.M. has strong likelihood of success on Title IX, no adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm, balance of harms/public interest favor injunction; bond waived |
| Equal Protection claim | A.M.: statute discriminatorily singles out transgender females | State: law is lawful classification to protect girls' athletics | Not decided — court declined to reach constitutional claim after granting Title IX relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (held that school policy barring transgender student from using restroom matching gender identity violated Title IX)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (Supreme Court held that employment discrimination against transgender or homosexual individuals constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII)
- Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 896 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2018) (discusses sliding-scale balancing and public-interest analysis for preliminary injunctions)
- B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ., 550 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D. W. Va. 2021) (preliminary injunction granted where state law barred transgender female student from girls' teams; addressed Title IX implications)