The debate over transgender athletes in girls’ sports has shifted from election campaigns to courtrooms. In four states, voters backed new restrictions this month, but legal challenges and proposed changes are already emerging.
In Washington and Colorado, Democratic leaders have supported court challenges or indicated they may seek changes to measures approved by voters. The split highlights a gap between ballot-box results and the positions of some political leaders, while school and sports officials in several states say they will follow the new laws.
Washington’s Initiative 638 passed with about 56% of the vote. It bars students identified as male from competing in girls’ school sports and requires healthcare documentation to verify the sex of students seeking to play on girls’ teams.
The Washington State Democratic Party said on Nov. 6 that opposition to the initiative would continue, arguing that it is unconstitutional and supporting groups preparing legal challenges.
The ACLU of Washington, Legal Voice and Pacifica Law Group later sued on behalf of the state teachers union, a nonprofit organization and several parents. The lawsuit argues that the measure discriminates against transgender girls and places unequal privacy demands on girls who want to participate in school sports. The plaintiffs are seeking to stop the initiative from taking effect on Dec. 3.
Seattle’s school board has also authorized a legal challenge, citing privacy and equal-treatment concerns, as well as possible conflicts with existing protections. The board’s decision allows the district to pursue a case; it does not put the initiative on hold.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown appointed the outside firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner to defend the measure for the state. Brown said his personal views would not determine which laws his office defends or how vigorously it does so. He said the arrangement would allow the initiative to receive a defense while his office continued its work on transgender rights.
Separately, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a motion on Nov. 13 asking King County Superior Court to let Female Athletes United join the case as a defendant. The group argues the state cannot fully represent female athletes’ interests. The filing is a request to participate, not a court decision granting that request.
Colorado voters approved Proposition 134 with about 52% support. It requires school and college sports teams to be designated male, female or coeducational and generally bases eligibility on biological sex.
Gov.-elect Phil Weiser has said he wants to review the measure and consider whether changes are needed. He also raised concerns about potentially intrusive checks of athletes’ eligibility. The proposition does not specifically require genital examinations or set out a uniform statewide verification process.
Weiser had not described particular changes in the reports available. Because Proposition 134 amends state law rather than the state constitution, lawmakers could revise it without another statewide vote. Demonstrators in Denver have called for its repeal, while supporters have accused Weiser of disregarding voters’ decision.
Colorado sports administrators have said they will comply. A spokesperson for the Colorado High School Activities Association said the organization must follow the new law, as must its member schools. Denver Public Schools likewise said it would support students while observing state law. The measure is due to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
In Arizona, Proposition 318 passed with roughly 59% support, expanding an existing restriction on male participation in girls’ sports. The measure was referred to voters by the legislature, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it. Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, had vetoed similar bills in earlier years.
The Arizona proposition also limits access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other private spaces according to the sex listed on a person’s original birth certificate. It removes an existing exception that allowed girls to play on boys’ teams.
A lawsuit filed before the election argued that the proposal violated the state’s single-subject rule. A judge rejected that claim, allowing the measure to remain on the ballot.
After the vote, the ACLU of Arizona criticized the result, saying the measure would further marginalize transgender students. The organization’s statement did not announce a new lawsuit against Proposition 318. The lack of a post-election legal challenge does not mean Democrats who opposed the measure have endorsed it.
Nebraska’s Initiative 442 won about 68% support, adding restrictions on male participation in girls’ school and college sports to the state constitution. The Nebraska Democratic Party’s voter guide had urged people to vote against it.
The measure also faced a pre-election challenge. On Oct. 16, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the petition’s statement of purpose met state requirements, rejecting an effort to keep the initiative off the ballot.
After the vote, the ACLU of Nebraska criticized the result and said it would watch for harassment or discrimination against students. The group did not announce a new lawsuit.
Unlike Colorado’s measure, Nebraska’s constitutional amendment cannot be changed through an ordinary legislative amendment. It also reinforces a restriction on sports participation that was already part of state law.
