U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against California for its policy allowing males in female sports.
The DOJ alleges two things: California discriminated against female student-athletes by allowing males in their sports and violated its Title IX contractual assurances, which means no federal funds.
Valenzuela did not address the fairness or whether California violated Title IX.
Instead, Valenzuela dismissed the lawsuit because the government did not give the California Department of Education (CDE) enough notice about losing federal funds over its policy.
Count I alleges that CDE “violated Title IX and its implementing regulations.” But with a lack of notice, Valenzuela dismissed it:
Count I depends on a single asserted rule: that Title IX requires schools to use biological sex, regardless of gender identity, to determine eligibility for girls’ athletics and access to sex-separated athletic facilities. Plaintiff’s athletics, equal-opportunity, and facilities theories all depend on that rule. Because Title IX and its regulations did not clearly impose any such rule as a condition of federal funding, Count I is dismissed.
Count II in the DOJ’s lawsuit accuses the CDE of violating its contract since it “agreed to comply with Title IX and its implementing regulations.” Valenzuela dismissed it for the same reason:
As explained above, Title IX and its regulations did not clearly condition federal funding on the categorical athletics and facilities rule alleged in the Complaint. An assurance to comply with Title IX cannot supply a term Title IX, its implementing regulations, or then-existing caselaw did not clearly impose. Because Plaintiff has not pleaded the underlying Title IX breach, Count II is dismissed.
The DOJ plans to appeal the decision.
“We are disappointed by the Court’s order and remain committed to enforcing President Trump’s agenda of preventing boys from playing in girls’ sports,” a DOJ spokesperson said, according to Fox News.
The DOJ filed the lawsuit in July 2025, a year before the Supreme Court ruled on males in female sports.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS issued a narrow ruling, allowing schools to determine eligibility for sports based on sex.
However, SCOTUS reinforced the meaning of sex in Title IX.
“The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” wrote the majority.
California has come under fire because a male known as AB Hernandez has been dominating female sports at the state championships. Hernandez even joined the varsity volleyball team:
Across the 2025 and 2026 CIF State Track & Field Championships, Hernandez captured four state titles, securing back-to-back victories in both the high jump and triple jump, along with a third-place finish in the 2026 long jump.
The competitive disparity forced CIF to create duplicate medals for female athletes pushed down the podium.
When Hernandez joined the girls’ varsity volleyball team, the issue expanded from competitive fairness to physical safety. Multiple rival high schools chose to forfeit their matches entirely rather than place their female players on the court against high-velocity net play.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.