The federal administration’s lawsuit against the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) alleged that allowing transgender girls to compete in female athletic competition denied cisgender female athletes athletic opportunities and violated Title IX. The district court ruled in favor of the CIF, but did so without directly addressing the critical issue of the students’ rights.
Instead, the court leaned on the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause doctrine to dismiss the case on summary judgment, leaving schools to have to continue navigating the tension between state and federal law.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in Spending Clause litigation that, when Congress conditions federal funds on specific requirements, it must also provide recipients of those funds with “clear notice” of the conditions so they can make an informed choice whether to accept the funds, and, consequently, the accompanying obligations.
The notice must be evident prior to acceptance of the funds. Title IX attached conditions to the acceptance of federal funds by providing that no person shall, “on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Although the CIF does not receive federal funds directly, it does receive federal funds through the CDE. And both the CDE and CIF have authority over local school districts’ interscholastic athletic policies.
California Education Code Section 221.5 requires schools to permit students to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with the student’s gender identity, regardless of the gender listed in the student’s records.
CDE guidance states that local educational agencies must comply with California sex-equity laws in addition to Title IX, and CIF Bylaws provide that students should be able to participate in CIF activities consistent with their gender identity. Accordingly, in California, transgender students are permitted to participate in sex-segregated athletic activities and utilize facilities in accordance with their gender identity.
While the state and federal laws seem incongruent, they are not directly in conflict with each other. As the ongoing string of litigation demonstrates, arguments can be made on both sides of the issue.
California clearly takes a position of broader participation for transgender student athletes based on their gender identity, whereas the federal administration believes participation should be based on biological sex alone. Accordingly, the administration believes California’s position runs afoul of Title IX and executive orders that were issued in 2025.
Those orders directed the U.S. Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement against institutions allowing male students, as defined, to participate in female athletics or use female locker rooms. Following the issuance the executive orders, CIF’s executive director sought guidance from the CDE and was directed to continue allowing student participation based on their gender identity pursuant to Education Code Section 221.5. In response, the U.S. Department of Education declared that the CIF was noncompliant with Title IX. The matter was ultimately referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement against the CIF, setting the stage for another opportunity for the courts to provide clarity on the issue.
However, the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of the ensuing litigation expressly declined to answer the question of whether Title IX permits transgender girls to participate on girls’ and women’s teams.
Instead, the court turned to Spending Clause principles, citing precedent applying those principles to Title IX.
In the 2025 case, Roe v. Critchfield, which involved transgender students asserting that Title IX required schools to provide access to facilities corresponding to the student’s gender identity, the court also avoided the broader question. As in this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the recipients of federal funds lacked clear notice of any obligations conditioning acceptance of those funds on rules regarding access to facilities. Imposing conditions under threat of revocation of those funds after the fact is impermissible. Here too, the court couched the issue as a matter of conditional federal funding, inquiring whether Title IX and its implementing regulations clearly required California to exclude transgender girls from girls’ teams and sex-separated facilities.
Although the court did not resolve the underlying question of transgender participation in sports, in reaching its decision, the court reviewed the text of Title IX, its implementing regulations and binding legal precedent, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., but found no clear requirement that all schools must determine eligibility and access based on biological sex.
In West Virginia v. B. P. J., the Supreme Court held that Title IX permits schools to determine eligibility for girls’ and women’s teams based on biological sex but repeatedly framed that holding in permissive terms. The Supreme Court explained that Title IX’s regulations “expressly permit schools” to maintain separate sex-based teams and ultimately held that states “may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females” and “may determine eligibility” for those teams based on biological sex. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld the use of biological-sex eligibility rules without holding that Title IX requires schools to implement such rules, thereby distinguishing between what federal funding recipients may do and what they must do.
As of now, because the district court in this case found the federal government failed to provide California with the requisite clear notice, the federal administration is barred from enforcing its edict against the CDE and CIF as a condition of receiving federal funds. Education Code Section 221.5 stands, and student athletes in California are permitted to participate in sports based upon their gender identity.
Please note that the information provided here by CSBA is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.