Female Athletes United v. Ellison
0:25-cv-02151
| D. Minnesota | Jul 1, 2025Background
- Female Athletes United (FAU), a Texas-based nonprofit with members in Minnesota, filed suit challenging Minnesota’s policy allowing 'biologically male' students who identify as female to compete in girls' and women’s sports.
- FAU alleges this policy unfairly disadvantages cisgender female athletes and violates Title IX by failing to provide equal opportunities and treatment for female athletes.
- FAU seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to exclude transgender females from female sports, and filed for a preliminary injunction soon after filing the complaint.
- State Defendants requested expedited discovery before the preliminary injunction hearing, arguing they need information about FAU’s standing and about a lengthy expert declaration submitted by FAU.
- FAU opposed expedited discovery, arguing standing is already supported by pleadings and declarations, and requested discovery was overly broad and burdensome.
- The Court grants limited expedited discovery to Defendants, allowing only a narrow interrogatory and a targeted document request to FAU, but denies all other nonparty and broad requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expedited discovery is needed re: standing | Declarations and complaint suffice for standing | Need 'targeted' discovery to test standing | Only limited interrogatory to FAU allowed |
| Scope of discovery regarding nonparties | Requests are overbroad and burdensome | Targeted discovery needed to develop record | No discovery to FAU members (nonparties) permitted |
| Discovery related to expert declaration | Sources are already disclosed; burden unnecessary | Need to review underlying sources | Only request for listing sources allowed, not copies |
| Breadth and timing of expedited discovery | Requests are premature and overly broad | Early discovery aids the preliminary injunction record | Limited, expedited discovery permitted only to FAU |
Key Cases Cited
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (sets standard for organizational standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes burden for standing increases at successive litigation stages)
- Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1987) (irreparable harm required for preliminary injunction)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (basis for federal injunctive relief is irreparable harm and lack of adequate legal remedy)