ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) 鈥 A transgender athlete should be allowed to compete in the women's division at powerlifting events because she's protected against discrimination by the Minnesota Human Rights Act, her attorneys urged the state Supreme Court on Tuesday.
USA Powerlifting rejected JayCee Cooper's application in 2018 to compete in the women's division of its events on the ground that she enjoys strength advantages over other women. Cooper sued in 2021, and the trial court sided with her.
But the Minnesota Court of Appeals to the trial court in March, saying there were 鈥済enuine issues of fact鈥 about whether USA Powerlifting excluded Cooper because of her transgender identity and whether the organization had a 鈥渓egitimate business reason鈥 for rejecting her. Cooper then took the case to the state's highest court.
Cooper's attorney, Christy Hall, said USA Powerlifting's policy discriminates against all transgender women, regardless of their individual physical capabilities, and urged the justices to reverse the Court of Appeals decision.
鈥淚t holds that stereotypes about people鈥檚 bodies as a group may legitimately be used to discriminate against individuals," Hall said. "For example, you could use the exact same logic to say women can鈥檛 be firefighters because firefighters need to be strong and women as a group aren鈥檛 as strong as men.鈥
Ansis Viksnins, an attorney for USA Powerlifting, argued that the law requires courts to answer the question of whether a defendant had a discriminatory motive, not just whether the action was discriminatory. He said the Court of Appeals was right to send the case back to the trial court to determine whether the sports group had a legitimate reason for barring Cooper from competing in its women's division.
鈥淚 would suggest there would be a serious, chilling effect on women鈥檚 sports鈥 if Cooper's arguments prevail, Viksnins said.
Transgender people鈥檚 has been a contentious issue across the country and was a hot topic in the fall elections. Republican put front and center in his presidential campaign. The movement regarded Trump's election as one of its biggest setbacks in its history.
At least 24 states have laws on the books barring transgender women and girls from competing in certain women鈥檚 or girls sports competitions. And the will take up the issue of for transgender minors, which has been banned by and
In an indication of the intense interest in the Minnesota case, numerous athletes and organizations on both sides filed friend-of-the-court briefs, including who was part of a group of 83 female athletes backing USA Powerlifting鈥檚 position. One of the organizations backing Cooper is the locally based LGBTQ+ rights group Gender Justice.
The contains broad protections against discrimination, including on the basis of sex defined broadly, and was to specifically include gender identity, when the Legislature also made Minnesota a coming from other states for .
鈥淲e believe in the right to live free from discrimination, and to pursue one's dreams, whether that's excelling in athletics, advancing in a career, or simply living openly as your own authentic self,鈥 state Sen. Erin Maye Quade, who serves as an adviser to Gender Justice, told reporters after the hearing. 鈥淢innesota has long been a leader in advancing justice. And we are proud to be a trans refuge state, providing hope and support amid a national landscape that has grown increasingly hostile to transgender people.鈥
USA Powerlifting argued in its brief that female transgender powerlifters have a significant advantage in a sport that relies inherently on strength. The group noted that Cooper could compete in an open division it created in 2021 to serve all gender identities.
Viksnins told reporters afterward that performance differences between male and female weightlifters provide a 鈥渓egitimate, nondiscriminatory reason鈥 to exclude transgender women and girls from competing in the group's women's division, and that the group deserves a chance to make that argument to a jury.
The justices took the case under advisement and did not say when they would rule. Since the legal arguments were based largely on how the courts should interpret Minnesota law, the eventual decision won't set a binding precedent for other states. But courts elsewhere faced with similar issues could choose to draw on the legal reasoning behind it.
