Brian Dittmeier, Director of LGBTQI+ Equality at the National Women’s Law Center, said that while the case focused on the Spending Clause instead of other Constitutional provisions, like Equal Protection, it still sends a powerful message for states with equal rights policies for trans people. He emphasized Valenzuela’s references to FAU v. Ellison. That Eighth Circuit case from earlier this year ended with the court denying an anti-trans organization’s bid for a preliminary injunction against the Minnesota State High School League’s inclusion of a transgender softball player.

Similar to Valenzuela, that panel of judges declared that the validity of protections for trans athletes under Title IX was not yet a settled matter. More importantly, however, Ellison reinforced the notion that the Trump Administration cannot simply bend Title IX to its will with, say, anti-trans executive orders.

“Executive findings and agency guidance cannot independently establish a claim under Title IX,” Dittmeier told Erin in the Morning. “They are attempting to abuse the enforcement process at the Office of Civil Rights to put forth their own preferred policy vision, instead of upholding the law. The Trump Administration can continue to try and push this view, but they will fail because they will keep running into the law.”

In the meantime, Dittmeier said these cases show promise for states that choose to fight for trans youth and preserve equal rights policies.

“This ruling demonstrates that inclusive policies can continue to be implemented and that states should stand by their policies, which are in accordance with Title IX,” he