America First Legal (AFL), a legal watchdog team founded by a close ally of the Trump administration, has provided evidence to challenge California’s lawsuit against an executive order regarding school sports. This order mandates that schoolchildren compete in sports leagues aligned with their biological sex. California Attorney General Robert Bonta filed a lawsuit in June, claiming the order caused “severe harm” to athletes. However, data requested by AFL has raised questions about the validity of this claim.
AFL submitted public records requests to the State of California, asking for evidence of harm related to the executive order, known as EO 14168. The responses were telling: both the California Civil Rights Department and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) returned answers claiming they found no records supporting the assertion of harassment or competitive inequities concerning transgender athletes.
In a formal response, a law firm representing CIF stated, “The CIF has determined that it does not have documents responsive to this request” regarding incidents of harassment or any data showing discrepancies in competition outcomes involving transgender girls. This lack of documentation raises serious questions about California’s assertion of harm in its legal battle against the Trump administration.
AFL officials expressed their skepticism, with Vice President Dan Epstein stating, “How can the State of California say with a straight face that its transgender athletes will suffer harm when its own Civil Rights Department ‘does not maintain data’?” He emphasized that without supporting records, the state’s ability to prove any actual harm is significantly undermined.
The absence of evidence also feeds into a larger narrative about lawfare—a legal strategy aimed at achieving political objectives through litigation. AFL’s statement suggests that California’s case lacks foundation, declaring, “This strategy is collapsing under its own lack of evidence.” This development may hinder one of the more prominent legal challenges against the Trump administration’s policies on gender issues in sports.
In an ongoing back-and-forth, Bonta recently addressed a related lawsuit from the Trump administration targeting California’s policies that allow transgender boys to compete in girls’ sports. He reiterated California’s commitment to uphold the rights of all students, including transgender students. “Our office remains committed to defending and upholding California laws and the rights of all students,” Bonta said, indicating a firm stance in the face of federal pushback.
The legal tussle gains complexity with the Trump administration’s allegations of illegal discrimination against CIF for its policies allowing biological males to compete in female sports. This accusation relies heavily on the principles of Title IX, designed to protect athletes from discrimination based on sex. Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized the administration’s commitment: “This Department of Justice will continue its fight to protect equal opportunities for women and girls in sports.”
The federal government seeks declaratory damages in the California case, with a significant financial context—the state receives substantial federal education funding. The implication here is clear: disputes over sports policy are not just about rules but also involve serious financial stakes tied to adherence to federal law.
As the legal showdown unfolds, the responses from the California Department of Education indicate a calculated silence, as they chose to offer “no comment” due to the ongoing litigation. This standoff exemplifies the tensions between state policies and federal mandates, particularly on divisive issues such as gender in sports.
The situation presents a stark reminder of how legal strategies can become battlegrounds for broader cultural and political conflicts, reflecting the deep divisions on issues of gender rights and protections in the United States.
"*" indicates required fields
