Judge Tosses DOJ Lawsuit Over California Allowing Males in Girls’ Sports
The judge dismissed the lawsuit because the government did not give the California Department of Education (CDE) enough notice about losing federal funds over its policy.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against California for its policy allowing males in female sports.
The DOJ alleges two things: California discriminated against female student-athletes by allowing males in their sports and violated its Title IX contractual assurances, which means no federal funds.
Valenzuela did not address the fairness or whether California violated Title IX.
Instead, Valenzuela dismissed the lawsuit because the government did not give the California Department of Education (CDE) enough notice about losing federal funds over its policy.
Count I alleges that CDE “violated Title IX and its implementing regulations.” But with a lack of notice, Valenzuela dismissed it:
Count I depends on a single asserted rule: that Title IX requires schools to use biological sex, regardless of gender identity, to determine eligibility for girls’ athletics and access to sex-separated athletic facilities. Plaintiff’s athletics, equal-opportunity, and facilities theories all depend on that rule. Because Title IX and its regulations did not clearly impose any such rule as a condition of federal funding, Count I is dismissed.
Count II in the DOJ’s lawsuit accuses the CDE of violating its contract since it “agreed to comply with Title IX and its implementing regulations.” Valenzuela dismissed it for the same reason:
As explained above, Title IX and its regulations did not clearly condition federal funding on the categorical athletics and facilities rule alleged in the Complaint. An assurance to comply with Title IX cannot supply a term Title IX, its implementing regulations, or then-existing caselaw did not clearly impose. Because Plaintiff has not pleaded the underlying Title IX breach, Count II is dismissed.
The DOJ plans to appeal the decision.
“We are disappointed by the Court’s order and remain committed to enforcing President Trump’s agenda of preventing boys from playing in girls’ sports,” a DOJ spokesperson said, according to Fox News.
The DOJ filed the lawsuit in July 2025, a year before the Supreme Court ruled on males in female sports.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS issued a narrow ruling, allowing schools to determine eligibility for sports based on sex.
However, SCOTUS reinforced the meaning of sex in Title IX.
“The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” wrote the majority.
California has come under fire because a male known as AB Hernandez has been dominating female sports at the state championships. Hernandez even joined the varsity volleyball team:
Across the 2025 and 2026 CIF State Track & Field Championships, Hernandez captured four state titles, securing back-to-back victories in both the high jump and triple jump, along with a third-place finish in the 2026 long jump.
The competitive disparity forced CIF to create duplicate medals for female athletes pushed down the podium.
When Hernandez joined the girls’ varsity volleyball team, the issue expanded from competitive fairness to physical safety. Multiple rival high schools chose to forfeit their matches entirely rather than place their female players on the court against high-velocity net play.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It is not, perhaps, too much to say that the world, in its headlong rush toward what it fondly terms progress, has arrived at a pass where common sense is treated as an unwelcome intruder at the feast of reason. One is compelled to wonder, with a sadness that outweighs any impulse toward mockery, what the founders of our athletic institutions would think could they look upon the spectacles now presented for our admiration.There was a time, within the memory of men who are not yet entirely decrepit, when the distinction between a young gentleman and a young lady was considered to be established by a power somewhat higher than a local sporting committee. It was understood that the physical endowments of the boy, rough and robust as they were intended to be, were suited to the cricket ground or the rowing match against his peers. The young lady, meanwhile, was permitted her own sphere of gentle competition, where grace and such vigor as belonged to her sex might be displayed without the hazard of overwhelming force.But we are now informed, by authorities who claim a finer sensibility than our ancestors possessed, that a lad has only to declare himself a maiden to become one for all purposes of the running track and the playing field. To suggest that his sinews remain those of a man, or that his victory over the gentler sex is a matter of anatomical certainty rather than sporting merit, is to be branded as a churl. It is a singular delusion. One might as well declare that a foxhound, by dint of choosing to fancy itself a terrier, should be allowed to compete for prizes in the catching of rats, to the manifest ruin of the terrier’s livelihood and honest exertion.The injustice of the matter is what must chiefly strike any mind not entirely blinded by the fashionable cant of the day. A young girl is encouraged to train her faculties, to deny herself the ease of indolence, and to strive for a modest triumph among her companions. Yet, when the day of trial arrives, she finds herself confronted by an antagonist who possesses an advantage that no amount of diligence on her part can ever match. It is not a contest of skill or determination; it is a simple surrender to physical dominance, permitted under the guise of an artificial charity.We are told that we must be kind, and that the feelings of the youth who wishes to be thought a maiden are to be protected at all costs. But what of the feelings of the maidens themselves? Is their disappointment nothing? Is their natural sense of fairness to be sacrificed so that a modern whim may be gratified?To subvert the natural order of things in the name of a spurious benevolence is a folly from which no good can arise. One can only hope that those who sit in the seats of judgment—those who, like your honorable body, are charged with the preservation of our ethical standards—will pluck up the courage to say that a spade remains a spade, and that a boy, however much he may wish it otherwise, cannot honorably carry away the laurels intended for a girl.
TL; DR
Your runon post is unreadable. Split it into paragraphs and try again.
.
On the contrary—give us more!
Seriously I’m not autistic enough for that wall of text.
You gen zees have no attention span or reading ability.
I’m gen X and I’m not reading a wall of a run-on sentence.
Forthwith, I shall label all posts by DSHornet as
TL;DR
as his lobotomy was effective.
While I often do not agree with E Howard Hunt, I thought his post was eloquent and enjoyable.
I thought it was a very excellent post.
Did you get a pet AI for your birthday?
I’d hate to think that this sudden and conspicuous change in your established style of posting was the consequence of a brain lesion or other trauma.
No, I just finished my last Anthony Trollope novel. That makes 47. I like to think that the great man had no small effect on me.
A fellow Trollope reader here. I believe Trollope did make use of paragraphs, however.
Next time… just use all caps.
It’s been a while since I last read any Trollope, but I think I recall him using the occasional whitespace.
If you’re a Trollope fan, and have any taste at all for fantasy, then I highly recommend Jo Walton’s Tooth and Claw, which is basically Trollope with dragons.
The basic problem with 19th century novels is that women in them behave in a way that no woman naturally behaves, or ever has done, including in that period. Real 19th century women didn’t behave that way, it was just a convention in novels. So Walton started wondering, what if women did behave like that? What would cause them to do so? What if there were some biological reason that forced them to behave like that? So she created a race of dragons whose biology forces them to behave like characters in such a novel, and wrote the novel that Trollope would have written about them.
Also recommended is his mother Fanny Trollope’s Domestic Manners of the Americans, a highly edited account of her family’s sojourn in the “Wild West” of Cincinnati.
I’m not reading all that.
I sorry/glad what happened to you.
The suit was filed a year ago and the judge delayed ruling on it until yesterday? Anything to gum up the courts for the Trump administration. If Speaker Johnson had any ba//s he would make sure the Judicial funding would be withdrawn for these crazed Judges.
California alleges two things
Ummm, do you mean the DoJ right there? I don’t think it’s the defendant alleging those things.
That the vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats — the self-styled, allegedly “pro-women” criminal organization — are even litigating to enable obnoxious, self-serving, misogynistic and predatory male trannies to have access to girls’ and women’s sports and private spaces, is utterly wicked and insane.
And, these reprobates still earnestly believe that this is a winning political issue.
The judge dismissed DOJ’s suit based on a procedural technicality — if a Dhimmi-crat DOJ had been the plaintiff, here, I’m certain the judge would have let the suit go forward… That’s how brazenly and transparently hypocritical these pukes are.
A Commassar Judge strikes again.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, go figure, another DEI dingbat appointed by the subversive Potatobrained Autopen.
Dude, learn to spell.
Why did they fight so hard for title IX to do this? Tell you all you need to know.
Interesting that District Court doesn’t want to recognize that the plain text of Title IX specifically uses ‘sex’ not ‘gender’. Nor recognize that Congress hasn’t revised the statutory language of Title IX in the nearly 55 years since it was passed and signed into law to substitute ‘gender’ for ‘sex’. Nor does the CT seem to recognize that every entity accepting Federal Funding must refrain from violating the Civil Rights Act or risk loss of funding. Bruh there’s been over 50 years of notice and willful ignorance, choosing to be deliberately obtuse doesn’t alter the facts.
The logic of the District Court decision re notice seems to be that everyone can do anything without fear of any consequence until they are provided individual notice that their prior conduct is unlawful and that consequences may follow if they don’t desist. Taken to an absurdity the logic of the District CT is a serial killer would have to be provided notice that him killing his 3 dozen prior victims was a ‘no no’ and he must not kill again lest there be penalties imposed.
“Taken to an absurdity the logic of the District CT is a serial killer would have to be provided notice that him killing his 3 dozen prior victims was a ‘no no’ and he must not kill again lest there be penalties imposed.”
Such logic is reserved for exonerating police officers, not serial killers. It activates their “qualified immunity.”
Indeed. Qualified immunity, at least as currently applied, has gotten out of control. LEO does need some deference but they also need an investment in mandatory retraining to drive home lessons about the present list of no nos and emerging lists. Particularly I’d like to see more 4A training re the curtilage of homes and when trespassing applies to them when conducting ‘knock and talk’. If they are reliant on the same implied licence to enter the property and knock on the door as any other person ..then the exact same restrictions must apply to them when told to leave the property. Same for what is required to demand ID from those not operating a vehicle and why they must not prolong non consensual encounters beyond the time to reasonably write the citation. It wouldn’t hurt to require all LEO to at least appear somewhat athletic and not look like they’ve spent one too many shifts eating biscuits n gravy at the waffle house. An annual LEO fitness test at the local HS open to the public wouldn’t be the worst idea either. It would probably be effective in shaming some of them into some semblance of fitness.
No, that’s not true. But when you sue someone for breach of contract, then the defendant does need to have been on notice that the contract means what you allege it means. You can’t spring a new interpretation of the contract on someone and expect him to have known it in advance and complied with it.
it’s not a contract.
Feds can change their minds at any time on any topic. Yes time is needed to comply.
This was not about time to comply else that would have been the defense. They never intended to comply and were very clear on that intention, hence the funding pull.
Yes, it is a contract. That’s explicitly what DOJ sued CA for. Breach of contract.
Anything and everything to throw sand in the gears…we’re in the age of judicial tyranny.
Yet another late in his term Biden judge.
Ignore and pull the funds anyway.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that “sex” in Title IX cannot be plausibly interpreted to mean anything but biological sex, destroys the District Court judge’s claim that: “Title IX and its regulations did not clearly impose any such rule as a condition of federal funding.”
If no other interpretation is plausible then the rule was clearly imposed. This case just has to be appealed until a judge or court is reached that is not controlled by the Democratic Party’s psychopathic dishonesty.
“Just.”
Is the law itself not its own “notice?” And likewise the EO?
The question is whether Title 9 clearly stated this rule. The judge says it didn’t, so CA wasn’t on notice until the DOJ suddenly adopted it.
Another rogue judge for debenchment.
utter crap.
They didn’t NOT COMPLY because they didn’t have TIME to comply, they fully asserted they never intended to comply, so unless the required notice were the end of time, this ruling should not stand.
Agencies trying to comply with whip lash federal regulation quite often state they can’t comply until a certain time period and are granted an reasonable time frame. This was NOT that. This should get overturned in 3, 2, 1, BLOTTO.
Meanwhile another couple grades of creepy boys get to lurk in the girls locker room.
Biden judge with an activist background.
Any Republican action that contravenes Democrat interests is illegal ‘cos reasons.
America is 2 nations united only by shared geography.