Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Minnesota Supreme Court Rules on Disqualification of Trans Athlete by USA Powerlifting
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that USA Powerlifting’s decision to disqualify a biological male trans athlete from competing in the women’s division constitutes discrimination. The ruling, issued on Wednesday, has sparked significant reactions from the organization and various stakeholders in the sports community.
USA Powerlifting, often referred to as USAPL, promptly issued a statement criticizing the court’s findings. The organization expressed its intent to thoroughly present all relevant facts and evidence of its actions to a jury, reflecting its stance since the litigation began in 2021.
In its official statement, USAPL stated, “Our goal since litigation commenced against USA Powerlifting in 2021 was to present all the facts and evidence of our actions to a jury. We are pleased that both of Minnesota’s state appellate courts agree we have a right to present a claim of business discrimination to a jury and look forward to offering our evidence toward that end.”
Legal Proceedings and Background
The legal struggle began when the trans athlete, JayCee Cooper, filed a lawsuit against USA Powerlifting in 2021. Cooper alleged that the organization discriminated against her by denying her application to compete in the women’s division in 2018. She argued that this action violated Minnesota’s Human Rights Act.
Initially, a lower court ruled in Cooper’s favor earlier this year. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court, highlighting that there were “genuine issues of fact” regarding whether USAPL’s decision was influenced by Cooper’s transgender identity and whether there were legitimate business reasons for her exclusion.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Minnesota Supreme Court accepted the case in July 2024, and its ruling underscored significant points about the policy enforced by USA Powerlifting. The court determined that the organization had a practice of categorically excluding transgender women from competing in the women’s division. Chief Justice Natalie Hudson articulated the court’s findings in a detailed opinion.
Chief Justice Hudson noted, “USA Powerlifting’s facially discriminatory policy provides direct evidence of discriminatory motive, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cooper’s transgender status actually motivated USA Powerlifting’s decision to prohibit Cooper from competing. We therefore reverse the part of the court of appeals’ decision on this issue.” The ruling ultimately concluded that USA Powerlifting had discriminated against Cooper based on her transgender status.
Advocacy for Fairness in Sports
In response to the ruling, USA Powerlifting maintained that its actions stemmed from legitimate concerns for fairness in the sport. The organization asserts that its decision to exclude Cooper from the women’s division was grounded in biological differences, claiming that the male physiology naturally confers advantages in competitions like powerlifting.
The organization emphasized that according to research, biological males possess a strength advantage of up to 64% in powerlifting, and simply suppressing testosterone levels reduces this advantage by only about 10%. USAPL’s statement further asserted the necessity for fair competition, positing that allowing male-to-female transgender athletes to compete in women’s categories undermines the integrity of women’s sports.
Public Opinion and Broader Implications
USAPL also referenced polling data that indicates a significant portion of Americans supports measures to protect women’s sports from transgender athletes. They cited a 2025 New York Times/Ipsos poll revealing that 79% of Americans oppose permitting transgender athletes to compete in women’s categories. This suggests a strong public sentiment surrounding the issue, further illustrated by the recent policy changes by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, which restricted participation to biological females in women’s events.
Political Reactions
The court’s ruling has not only ignited a debate within the sports community but has also drawn political responses, particularly from Minnesota Republican legislators. They have openly condemned the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as detrimental to the progress made for women’s sports.
Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth issued a forceful statement decrying the ruling. She remarked, “For decades, women and girls fought tirelessly for the rights guaranteed under Title IX. Sadly, those hard-won protections have increasingly come under attack, and today’s decision marks another setback in the fight to protect girls’ sports.”
Demuth emphasized concerns about fairness and safety in women’s sports, stating, “Minnesotans overwhelmingly agree that their daughters and granddaughters should not be forced to compete against boys. House Republicans are ready to act in the first weeks of next year’s legislative session to make clear that girls’ sports are for girls.”
A Turning Point in Sports Policy
This ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about gender identity and inclusion in competitive sports. It highlights the tensions between ensuring fairness in athletics and the rights of transgender individuals to participate according to their gender identity. As the discourse continues, stakeholders from various sides are calling for a balanced approach that respects both inclusivity and the preservation of fair competition.
As the legal proceedings move forward, the implications of this ruling will undoubtedly reverberate throughout the sporting world, influencing policies and prompting broader discussions about gender in athletics.
