After a sweeping legal victory for women and girls’ sports in 2025 and the Trump administration’s executive order affirming equal opportunities for female athletes under Title IX, it seems the battle to keep women’s sports female is well on its way.
But the fight to uphold biological reality and protect women and girls isn’t over yet. States across the country still allow males to compete in women’s sports, even in violation of federal law.
Now, Female Athletes United, including four members competing in high school sports, is challenging a Minnesota policy that allows male athletes to compete on girls’ teams.
Forced to compete against a male athlete
Female Athletes United (FAU) is an organization dedicated to defending women and girls in sports, promoting their right not to compete against biological males.
FAU has members from many different backgrounds, both current and former female athletes, as well as men and women who aren’t athletes. Members live all over the country, including in Minnesota.
Four female softball players in Minnesota are members of FAU who have suffered the consequences of a state policy allowing males to compete in girls’ sports.
- Athlete 1 is a senior and competes on her school’s varsity softball team. Her team lost multiple games to a team with a male athlete during the 2024 and 2025 seasons, including in the regular season and sectionals. The male athlete pitched every inning during all of these games. In one game, Athlete 1’s team did not score at all. This spring marks Athlete 1’s senior season and her final chance to win the state high school tournament. Her team is still scheduled to compete against the team with the male athlete.
- Athlete 2 is a senior and the top pitcher on her high school varsity softball team. She has also competed on the same club team as the male athlete. When she found out she would have to compete against this male athlete for the opportunity to pitch on the club team, she quit the team. As a pitcher, she understands how the male athlete’s larger limbs and bigger hands give greater control and the ability to put more spin on the ball. This season, her team and the male’s team could face each other in the state tournament.
- Athlete 3 is a junior who plays varsity softball, primarily as a catcher and utility. She says that the “force, speed, and spin” of the male athlete’s pitches “are unlike what [she] has faced with other pitchers,” even as part of her club softball team, which faces some of the country’s top girls’ softball teams. This season, her team and the male’s team could face each other in the state tournament.
- Athlete 4 is a high school junior who plays pitcher, outfield, and shortstop for her high school’s varsity softball team. Last season, Athlete 4’s team faced off against the male athlete’s team in their first game of the state tournament. Athlete 4’s team lost 5-0, ending her chances of making it to the state championship. During the game, the male athlete pitched for the whole game, and Athlete 4’s team only advanced a runner past first base twice. Similar to the other athletes, Athlete 4’s team could potentially play against the male athlete’s team again this season.
Minnesota’s policy of allowing males to compete in girls’ sports has deprived girls of opportunities—not only for victory and advancement, but also for recognition and awards. And the unfair cycle will only continue for these four female athletes in the next softball season. They all could again face this male athlete who will likely continue to displace and defeat female players in their own sport.
State policy undermines equal opportunities for female athletes
The current situation for these four female athletes isn’t isolated—it’s state policy, thanks to the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) and the state attorney general’s endorsement.
MSHSL, comprising more than 500 member schools, facilitates athletic competitions for schools across the state, including public schools subject to Title IX.
Since 2015, MSHSL has allowed males who identify as girls to compete on girls’ sports teams. Minnesota’s policy relies only on an individual’s self-expressed “identity,” not biological fact, which clearly illustrates the inherent physiological advantages of males over females.
This policy violates the rights of female athletes in Minnesota, denying them equal athletic opportunities and even potentially subjecting them to injury and harm.
Putting Minnesota officials on notice
Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs or activities, including athletics.
In January 2025, a federal district court blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity.” The ruling helps preserve equal opportunities for women in sports by upholding biological reality in federal law.
President Trump’s executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” also affirmed that Title IX protects girls’ sports.
But in response to the executive order, MSHSL stated that it would continue allowing male athletes to participate in girls’ sports—in violation of federal law.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to the state attorney general and the executive director of MSHSL notifying them that the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights had begun a Title IX investigation of the Minnesota State High School League.
But Minnesota officials are still putting the rights of males ahead of females by allowing them to compete in girls’ sports.
That’s why ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of Female Athletes United. No girl should be forced to compete on an unfair playing field. States, including Minnesota, should restore common sense and protect fairness and safety in women’s sports.
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
- May 2025: ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of Female Athletes United to challenge Minnesota’s discriminatory policy allowing males to compete in women’s sports.
- September 2025: FAU lost a request for a preliminary injunction at the district court and appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
- January 2026: The 8th Circuit heard oral argument in the case on the request for a preliminary injunction.
Related Articles
