The Mountain West Conference (MWC) is a collegiate athletic conference comprised of 13 colleges and universities. Eleven of these institutions host women’s volleyball teams for the 2024-2025 academic year. A group of volleyball players from four of these universities filed suit against the MWC and San José State University (SJSU) related to the MCW’s Transgender Participation Policy (Policy).
MWC adopted the Policy in August 2022, which mandates that if a team refuses to compete against another team that includes an eligible transgender athlete, the refusing team forfeits the match. The Policy was unanimously ratified by the Athletic Directors of all member institutions.
The controversy began when SJSU allegedly recruited a transgender woman to its women’s volleyball team prior to the 2022 season. Although this athlete participated in matches during the 2022 season, her status as a transgender player did not become widely known or discussed until an article published in early 2024 brought it to public attention. This led to heightened scrutiny and objections from some teams within the conference.
During the 2024 season, several teams refused to compete against SJSU due to concerns about fairness and safety related to SJSU’s alleged transgender athlete. These forfeitures included: Boise State University, University of Wyoming, Utah State University, and University of Nevada, Reno.
Each forfeiture was recorded as a loss for the refusing team and a win for SJSU under the Policy. Notably, none of these institutions formally protested the application of the Policy at the time or requested alternative treatment of their losses until this lawsuit was filed.
The plaintiffs’ current motion for a preliminary injunction argued that the Policy unfairly penalized teams that refused to play against SJSU and sought emergency relief from the Court. They requested that the Court rescind portions of the Policy, nullify SJSU’s wins resulting from forfeitures, and enjoin SJSU from rostering its alleged transgender athlete.
In examining the plaintiffs’ claims, the Court considered alleged violations of Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment. The Court’s analysis centered on the standards for granting a preliminary injunction, which requires the moving party to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, a balance of equities in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.
The Court paid particular attention to whether the plaintiffs showed that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction and a significant point in the Court’s analysis was the timing of the lawsuit and the requested relief. The case was filed just two weeks before the MWC Women’s Volleyball Tournament was scheduled to begin, which the Court said weakened the plaintiffs’ argument that the harm was irreparable. Furthermore, the Policy was approved and ratified by the MCW’s member institutions. Any threatened harm resulting from MCW’s enforcement of the Policy was explicitly addressed in the Policy—when a team refuses to compete against another team that rosters a transgender teammate, the refusal is deemed a forfeit, the forfeiting team will be charged with the loss, and the opposing team will be credited with a win for the purposes of MCW records and standings.
Although the plaintiffs argued that MCW did not publish the Policy until September 2024 and that they were unaware of the policy until that time, the Court found that the eventual posting did not render the 2022 internal enactment and application any less valid. Furthermore, the forfeiting schools publicly acknowledged the application of the Policy when they forfeited their games throughout the season, yet only brought the emergency motion two weeks before the MCW Tournament.
Similarly, the Court reasoned that the plaintiffs and their institutions did not request to enjoin SJSU from rostering its alleged transgender teammate until they filed this emergency motion, yet were aware of the athlete’s status as early as spring 2024 when the article was published.
The Court considered that there was no threat of harm because most (if not all) of the alleged harm had already occurred—the alleged transgender teammate had played on the team since 2022.
The Court also concluded that the plaintiffs did not show that they would likely succeed on their Title IX, Equal Protection, and First Amendment claims. The Court considered the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent interpreting Title VII and Title IX, and found that discrimination based on “sex” includes discrimination based on an individual’s transgender status or sexual orientation. Moreover, because Title IX prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals, the Court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Similarly, for the First Amendment claim, the Court noted that the plaintiffs have a protected right to protest; however, the Policy was ratified and enacted by MWC institutions in 2022, and these teams and players did not protest their forfeits.
Finally, the Court found that the balance of harms weighed against the plaintiffs because of the timing of an eleventh-hour change to the MWC Tournament would risk confusion and upend months of planning by the need to reseed and reschedule the bracket.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the legal arguments presented did not meet the high standards required for granting such extraordinary relief as a preliminary injunction.
Slusser v. Mt. W. Conf. (D.Colo. Nov. 25, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 214364.
Note: The day after this decision was published, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision and denied the plaintiffs’ request for an appeal.