The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that an adult transgender athlete was discriminated against when she was banned from participating in a women\u2019s powerlifting competition but opened the door to additional legal challenges.<\/p>\n
Minnesota\u2019s high court issued its opinion Wednesday morning. In doing so, the court affirmed that the state\u2019s Human Rights Act\u00a0(MHRA) protects transgender people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, it didn\u2019t go as far as many transgender individuals and their supporters would\u2019ve liked.<\/p>\n
Instead of issuing a wide-ranging order that affirms protections for trans people, the court focused narrowly on the specific case and indicated that further issues will be decided when they are challenged.<\/p>\n
Background<\/p>\n
The ruling comes after a six-year legal battle started by JayCee Cooper, a transgender athlete who was denied entry in a USA Powerlifting competition\u2019s women\u2019s events. That happened in 2019 when Cooper was roughly 30 years old.<\/p>\n
RELATED: Minnesota Supreme Court to hear discrimination case of trans athlete denied from entering powerlifting competitions<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n A Ramsey County judge ruled in Cooper\u2019s favor in 2023, finding discrimination.<\/p>\n However, a year later, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that discrimination based on gender identity violates the MHRA but sent the case back to the district court to determine whether Cooper was discriminated against for being transgender.<\/p>\n The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in July 2024.<\/p>\n Impact<\/p>\n Wednesday\u2019s ruling is a win for Cooper on the surface and requires all places of public accommodation to avoid discrimination against transgender individuals.<\/p>\n However, it\u2019s not as wide-ranging as it may seem.<\/p>\n The justices acknowledged that there could be a legitimate business reason to stop transgender athletes from competing in women\u2019s sports but stopped short of issuing any ruling on that because USA Powerlifting didn\u2019t raise any legitimate business exemptions.<\/p>\n That means if USA Powerlifting or another organization argues for that specific exemption in the future \u2014 which seems very likely \u2014 the court will look at that separately and issue a ruling at that time.<\/p>\n Additionally, the justices declined to overturn the court\u2019s 2001 ruling that said the MHRA doesn\u2019t ensure transgender employees can use their preferred restroom at work. <\/p>\n RELATED: Minnesota AG\u2019s Office responds to federal call for transgender athlete ban<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The ruling comes on the heels of an ultimatum from the federal government, which ordered Minnesota to ban transgender students from competing in high school sports or risk millions in school funding.<\/p>\n Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said banning trans athletes from high school competitions would conflict with state anti-discrimination law and vowed to take the Trump administration to court.<\/p>\n The Minnesota Supreme Court\u2019s ruling seemingly opted to stay out of the middle of that debate, refusing to affirm Ellison\u2019s assertion and further the state\u2019s standing as a \u201ctrans refuge\u201d state<\/a> while also not rescinding any protections, yet.<\/p>\n