Photo by ARTO SURAJ on Unsplash
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
According to a new filing posted by Chris Geidner at Law Dork, the Alliance Defending Freedom has filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to begin targeting transgender athletes in blue states. The filing, which centers on a cisgender female wrestler in Washington, uses Title IX and “parental rights” to claim that transgender athletes should be barred from competing against her. It also asks the Court to treat the filing as a petition for certiorari before judgment and hear the whole case this term, which could have expansive effects on transgender participation in sports, even in blue states. Should SCOTUS grant the shadow-docket request, it would be the first time the Supreme Court has imposed restrictions on transgender athletes in a blue state, and though the initial relief could be limited, it would be cited as a blessing for Trump’s attempts to strongarm schools across the country into similar bans.
The case centers on a cisgender student wrestler at Rogers High School in Puyallup, Washington. On December 6, 2025, she wrestled a match against another student who she says she did not know was transgender. She claims the other student sexually assaulted her during a hold, and the application calls her opponent, the presumably transgender girl, her “assailant.” Following the match, however, the other student was not charged or found to be guilty of any criminal conduct, and her coach said after reviewing video that she appeared to be attempting a “Jake leg” takedown and failed to execute it properly, meaning that the conduct was likely inadvertent. Despite this, local and national conservative outlets picked up the story, igniting a fresh firestorm against a transgender athlete and supportive policies towards transgender students.
Now, the Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a request to bar the cisgender student from being matched against any transgender student. The filing states that transgender girls, whom it calls “males” throughout, have “inherent physical advantages” that “necessarily” create safety risks and competitive disadvantages for cisgender girls, and that under Title IX, any state that lets a transgender girl compete is “treating females worse than males.” It also states that the parent of this cisgender athlete has a “parental right” to be notified before her daughter competes against any transgender athlete, a finding that, if accepted, would require Washington to identify every transgender student athlete who could be matched against her daughter and extend “parental rights” to the right to demand other children be outed.
The Alliance Defending Freedom also, alternatively, requests that the filing be treated as a petition for “certiorari before judgment.” If accepted, this would bring the case to the Supreme Court this term and could resolve a question the Court deliberately left open in West Virginia v. B.P.J., the recent decision that allowed states to ban transgender athletes. That particular ruling did not require blue states to ban trans athletes—in its footnote, the Court said the case did not ask whether schools “may allow” transgender girls to compete. Should the Supreme Court hear this request, it could decide whether blue states must enact bans, restrictions, or out trans athletes under Title IX as well, something the Alliance Defending Freedom explicitly wants in its filing to “send a message” to states that allow such athletes to compete.
Washington’s response to the application is due October 13. The state’s wrestling season opens in mid-November, meaning a ruling could come quickly. The timing also falls just ahead of Election Day, in an election where trans sports participation has been a major feature of Republican anti-trans ads and of some Democrats’ campaigns, as they stake out similar positions in their bids for power. Though granting such emergency orders is rare, this Supreme Court has shown a remarkable willingness to rule against transgender people whenever their cases reach it: since 2024 it has sided against them in every merits decision and some emergency orders as well.
You can read the full filing here:
26a458
1.95MB ∙ PDF file
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.