Female Athletes United v. Ellison
0:25-cv-02151
| D. Minnesota | Aug 4, 2025Background
- Female Athletes United (FAU) sued various Minnesota officials and school boards over issues connected to the participation of a non-party minor athlete, who is transgender, in school sports.
- A Protective Order was entered to shield the identity and sensitive information of non-party minors involved in the case.
- FAU objected, arguing the order was too vague and unlawfully restricted public information and speech.
- The main factual context involves balancing the privacy of non-party minors, including a transgender minor, against First Amendment rights and public access to information.
- The court considered whether the Protective Order was a lawful and sufficiently clear restriction, especially in light of already-public information and sensitive privacy concerns.
- Ruling on FAU’s objections, the court sustained them in part and entered an Amended Protective Order with modifications to strike a balance between confidentiality and public access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of Protective Order | Order is too vague, unclear what's protected | Order sufficient; vagueness not fatal | Sustained in part—order must be more specific |
| Disclosure of Public Information | Should not restrict info already public | Even public info can lead to identification | Sustained in part—public info may be disclosed only if no risk |
| First Amendment & Prior Restraint | Order is an unlawful prior restraint on speech | Order is limited and justified by privacy | Protective Order is prior restraint, must be narrowly tailored |
| Compelling Interest in Protecting Minors’ Identities | Insufficient justification for broad order | Compelling state interest in confidentiality | Narrow tailoring required; specific confidential info protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (protective orders restricting publication must not be vague)
- Hynes v. Mayor & Council of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (First Amendment regulations must be specific)
- Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (prior restraints are presumptively unconstitutional)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596 (compelling interest in safeguarding minor's well-being)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (strict scrutiny requires narrowly tailored means for compelling interests)