Trump Administration Targets California’s Transgender Athlete Policies in Bold Lawsuit
U.S. DOJ Files Suit Against California DOE and CIF for Title IX Violations; And Also Breaking news On Another Egg-cellent Lawsuit from the US DOJ against California.
⏱ 4 min read
Swift Justice Response
Yesterday was a turning point in the ongoing battle over fairness in high school sports. The U.S. Department of Justice, led by U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli in the Central District of California, filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation. This action came just days after the California agencies refused to comply with a directive from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Monday. Yesterday I had a full update on this. The directive demanded changes to policies allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports, citing violations of Title IX, the federal law ensuring equal educational opportunities. The lawsuit marks a decisive step in a heated clash between federal and state authorities over fairness in athletics. Here are two short videos on X - one where ace political reporter Ashley Zavala of CRA3 television in Sacramento interviews Essayli, and a very strong statement from Assistant U.S. Attorney (and head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division) Harmeet Dhillon.
California’s Defiance
The Justice Department’s filing pulls no punches, quoting California Governor Gavin Newsom’s own words: “It is ‘deeply unfair’ for girls to compete against boys.” Yet, California’s policies, rooted in the state’s Education Code, permit students to participate in sports based on the gender they choose, not biological sex they were born. This, the lawsuit argues, displaces girls from podiums, denies them awards, and undermines opportunities for scholarships and recognition. The federal government contends that such policies erode the integrity of girls’ sports and violate Title IX’s core purpose.
Real-World Impact
Consider the case of a male student athlete, A.B. Hernandez, Student 1 in the filing, who competed in girls’ track events. At the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships, he claimed first place in the girls’ triple jump and high jump, and second in the long jump. Had he competed against boys, his distances would have ranked last. “The results of these illegal policies are stark: girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards, and miss out on critical visibility,” the lawsuit states. This pattern, repeated across multiple students and sports, highlights the tangible harm to female athletes’ opportunities.
A Broader Battle
This lawsuit represents more than just another legal filing—it signals a fundamental shift in how we approach fairness in athletics. States like California, where policymakers and very liberal, argue their policies protect inclusivity, while critics, including the Trump administration, assert they undermine fairness for female athletes. The Justice Department’s action signals a warning to other states with similar policies, as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared, “If you do not comply, you’re next.” As this legal fight unfolds, it promises to reshape the landscape of high school athletics, with California at the epicenter.
Cracking Down: Trump Administration Sues California Over Egg Prices
The Trump administration is scrambling to crack California’s egg regulations with a new lawsuit that’s no yolk. Filed yesterday in the Central District of California, the U.S. Department of Justice is targeting Proposition 12, which mandates cage-free housing for hens and sets strict standards for eggs sold in the state. The feds argue these rules are a hard-boiled attempt to over regulate, inflate egg prices, and foul interstate commerce. They claim California’s laws—Proposition 2, AB 1437, and Proposition 12—have egged on a 20% price hike since implementation, leaving consumers shell-shocked.
The lawsuit, naming Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, asserts that egg regulation falls under federal authority, not state whims. Proposition 12’s cage-free requirements, while aimed at hen welfare, are accused of poaching profits from out-of-state producers who must shell out to comply. California’s defense? These laws reflect voter demand for humane treatment and are not ready to crack under pressure. Bonta’s team argues the state’s standards don’t over-egg the pudding but protect ethical farming.
This egg-stravagant dispute could whisk up changes in how states regulate agriculture. As both sides dig in, expect a sunny-side-up showdown that might leave California’s progressive policies in a scramble. Stay tuned—this one’s bound to hatch more headlines.