Breaking News: Justice Department Challenges California’s Attempt to Keep Biological Boys In Girls Sports

In a filing on Friday, Federal prosecutors argue Title IX protects biological sex, not gender identity, as they ask the court to reject California’s motion.

⏰ 6 minute read (free), four more minutes (paid)

Federal prosecutors argue Title IX protects biological sex, not gender identity

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed its Opposition to California’s Motion to Dismiss in the federal Title IX case challenging state policies that allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports through the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF). The department says Title IX means biological sex—not gender identity—and asks the court to deny California’s motion.

The filing team was led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon and U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli (Central District of California). Also on the brief: Principal Deputy AAG Jesus A. Osete, Senior Counsel Robert J. Keenan, DOJ attorney Matthew J. Donnelly, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard M. Park and Julie Hamill. California government actors, led by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have publicly defended the state’s policy, but DOJ now contends their legal arguments cannot overcome the statute’s text, long-standing regulations, and precedent. The case is set for hearing before Judge Cynthia Valenzuela on October 24.

What the DOJ’s Opposition Says, in Brief

DOJ’s brief makes four key points:

• Statutory interpretation: Title IX prohibits “discrimination on the basis of sex,” and that phrase has always meant biological sex. Neither the statute, regulations, nor agency practice have adopted “gender identity” as an alternative definition.

• Title IX’s text and long-standing regs permit sex-separated sports. DOJ says California’s reading rewrites that framework.

• Title IX is a funding statute; conditions must be clear. DOJ’s point: recipients have long been on notice that “sex” means biological sex.

• California’s dismissal arguments don’t state a claim under Title IX because they treat gender identity as interchangeable with biological sex without legal support.

Download the brief here.

What we already have and where this began

“State policy allowing biological men to play in female sports eviscerates fairness and safety, and Title IX was never meant to empower that.” — from my column published July 10, the day after the filing of the U.S. Department of Justice’s original lawsuit.

In that column I said this wasn’t just rhetoric: DOJ’s July 9 suit explicitly alleged that California’s Department of Education and CIF engaged in illegal sex discrimination by allowing males to compete against females—violating Title IX.

California later moved to dismiss the federal complaint, arguing that Title IX encompasses gender identity and that state law requires athletic participation based on gender identity. DOJ’s Sept. 19 opposition says Title IX protects female athletes based on biological sex and that California’s theory doesn’t fit the statute.

Implications: Where this could lead

If the court denies California’s motion, the case proceeds on the merits and could clarify that “sex” in Title IX means biological sex—reinforcing the settled rationale for sex-separated teams and facilities.

If the court goes the other way, sex-based lines in schools—teams, records, facilities—could be redrawn nationwide.

This isn’t about trophies. It’s about fairness, safety, and whether federal law rests on biological facts or subjective identity.

So, Does It Matter?

This absolutely matters. The government’s opposition is not just procedural—it’s a fight over the meaning of “woman” and “man” in federal law. For readers who believe rights and protections should be tethered to biological reality, this case could set foundational precedent. It will affect what rights are recognized or rejected, what the government can require (or prevent) in places from locker rooms to sports fields, and how future Title IX, Equal Protection, and federal spending policies are enforced.

If the courts affirm DOJ’s view, California (and other states) will need to align athletic and school policies with a biological sex standard or risk litigation and loss of federal funding. If courts go the other way, the progressive vision of gender identity as interchangeable with biological sex could gain legal force, reshaping policy nationwide. For people who expect limited government, clear law, and protection of rights grounded in biology, this fight is central.

---

The media won’t tell you, but the polling is decisive: Americans overwhelmingly want fairness in women’s sports. Below the firewall, paid subscribers get the full data, the chart, and what it means for the battles ahead—analysis you won’t find anywhere else. Your subscription doesn’t just unlock the whole story, it keeps this independent reporting alive.