Trump Administration to California: Protect Girls Sports
Dear John,
In a decisive move to uphold the integrity of women's sports, the Trump administration has issued a stern warning to California's public school districts: comply with federal Constitution and Title IX protections or face legal consequences.
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, dispatched a letter to California school officials this week, notifying districts that they must certify in writing — by Monday, June 9 — that they intend to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and won’t implement CIF Bylaw 300.D.
Title IX, enacted in 1972, is the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding. It has been instrumental in expanding opportunities for women and girls in sports and academics for more than 50 years.
The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) is the governing body for high school sports in California. CIF’s controversial Bylaw 300.D mandates that male athletes be allowed to participate in sports consistent with their “gender identity,” regardless of their biological sex.
“The domination of one of those males, AB Hernandez, in this year’s track and field finals has catalyzed a kind of nonpartisan parent revolt,” writes California Policy Center president Will Swaim in National Review. “President Trump stepped into the breach, declaring California’s approach to girls sports a violation of federal law and threatening that he’d withhold federal funds to state schools that engage in that same violation.”
Last Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department sent letters of legal notice to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and CIF that it is opening an investigation to determine whether Title IX is being violated by AB 1266, a state law permitting males to participate on female sports teams at state schools.
In response to Trump’s intervention, CIF declared it would allow female athletes displaced by males to participate in state finals. Ultimately, Hernandez was allowed to share the girls’ podium along with the winners who would have been unfairly edged out by Hernandez’s wins.
As the controversy unfolded, California Justice Center president Julie Hamill appeared on CNN News Central with Brianna Keilar last Friday to discuss CIF’s rule modification. The not-to-be-missed exchange between Keilar and Hamill immediately went viral on social media.
One of the most-watched moments of the exchange follows:
“What would make this fair for her to compete, for those who are competing against her?” Keilar said. "What would that kind of structure in competition look like?"
“Who is her?” Hamill asked.
“AB,” Keilar said.
“Okay, AB Hernandez is a male who identifies as a female. What would be fair is to have Hernandez competing in the male category. It is not fair to the females competing to have to compete with a male,” Hamill explained.
You can watch the full not-to-be-missed 6-minute exchange between Keilar and Hamill here.
CNN viewers across the country were notably stunned to hear such frank honesty from Hamill on the left-wing cable news channel. Thousands of likes and comments poured in supporting Hamill, and one longtime CNN viewer even called California Policy Center to thank Hamill personally.
“Thank you for speaking the truth!” she said. “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!”
The Trump administration upped the ante this week with the letter it sent to school districts, warning school officials that CIF Bylaw 300.D violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
California officials responded to the Trump administration’s declaration with the legal equivalent of one of those cartoon guns that shoots out a flag that reads “BANG.” In a letter to the state’s thousands of local school officials, Tony Thurmond, California’s state superintendent of public instruction, told everyone to relax. Pointing to state Education Code 221.5, Thurmond wrote, “State law on this issue has remained unchanged since 2013 and applies to all [Local Education Agencies] in California.”
That piece of the Ed Code was created by AB 1226, the 2013 bill that transformed California’s understanding of federal law — specifically that part of Title IX that banned sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding, ensuring equal access and opportunities for women and girls, including women and girls who play sports. Title IX distinguishes those spaces based on sex; California’s AB 1226 used an editor’s pen to replace the word “sex” with “gender identity.” That simple wordplay has allowed California males who call themselves girls to compete against actual/factual biological girls.
The state Senate’s analysis of the bill attempted to settle any anxiety about AB 1226’s legality. It wasn’t really a revolutionary break with the past, the analysts said, because San Francisco and Los Angeles school districts had made the word-change about a decade before. In both instances, those proposals to advance the politics of gender identity were also drafted by local teacher union leaders and (unremarkably) adopted by the school board members they helped elect in the first place.
That bill — drafted and carried through the legislature’s Senate and Assembly by the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers — was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. And, sure, that makes it what Superintendent Thurmond’s letter calls a state “law.” And it has, as Thurmond said, remained unchanged in the 12 years since.
None of this legal history will protect schools that flout federal law. Their determination to follow Thurmond’s advice — to ignore their responsibilities under federal law — will leave them exposed to Title IX’s penalty clause: they’ll lose all federal funding. Compliance with state law does not excuse a violation of Title IX.
“We’re relieved to see the Trump administration step in to end the unfair sidelining of female athletes in California,” said Hamill, who filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Education on behalf of two female California athletes.
“Governor Newsom claims to be a leader on women’s rights and is on record saying males competing against females in sports is ‘deeply unfair.’ Yet when former Assemblyman Bill Essayli introduced legislation to end the practice of allowing males in women’s sports and spaces, Newsom was nowhere to be found, and the Democrat supermajority legislature killed the bill. Now California stands to lose about eight billion federal dollars because of the stubborn refusal to comply with federal laws,” Hamill said.
California Policy Center is proud to support Hamill — who is not only CPC's attorney but is also the founder of our sister organization, the California Justice Center. If you’d like to contribute to the Justice Center’s ongoing legal efforts to defend the rights of women and girls in California, we welcome donations of any size here.
Following the CNN showdown, Hamill also appeared on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton radio show, which you can watch here.
|
|
|
California Policy Center is proud to be a sponsor of FreedomFest 2025, June 11–14, 2025 in Palm Springs, CA — the world’s largest gathering of free minds. Join us for four days of powerful keynote speeches, thought-provoking panels, lively debates, and the Anthem Film Festival. And be sure to stop by the “Tradeshow for Liberty” exhibit hall and visit us at booth #509.
Learn more about FreedomFest 2025 and explore the lineup of speakers, including this year’s keynote Adam Carolla, at freedomfest.com.
We hope to see you there!
|
|
Bay Area Transportation and Housing Policies Cannot Stop Climate Change
Bay Area transportation and housing initiatives that cost billions are often portrayed as "climate change solutions." CPC Visiting Fellow Marc Joffe debunks the false belief that these projects could have any meaningful impact on the trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions, and explains why they should instead be evaluated using traditional cost-benefit analyses. Read the article.
|
|
To Save Ecosystems, Sometimes Hands-Off is Not Enough
One of the biggest debates over environmental stewardship is whether a degraded ecosystem is best left completely alone to recover or whether it should be restored by increasing human intervention and management. CPC's Edward Ring examines why choosing to actively manage ecosystems can often be the best option — and why ruling out intervention can do more harm than good. Read the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
