Title IX under fire: Trump sues Maine for letting transgender girls compete in female sports

Why has the Trump administration taken legal action against Maine over transgender athletes?

The U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of Maine, accusing it of violating Title IX by allowing transgender girls to compete in school sports designated for females. The complaint alleges that Maine’s policy enables individuals assigned male at birth to displace biologically female athletes in competitive environments, thereby denying them fair opportunities in education and athletics.

The lawsuit follows an executive order issued in February 2025 titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which directs all federally funded educational institutions to restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to individuals assigned female at birth. This directive marked a sharp escalation in the administration’s efforts to redefine federal civil rights law based on biological sex rather than gender identity.

Maine, one of several states that explicitly permits transgender girls to compete on girls’ sports teams under anti-discrimination statutes, has refused to comply with the federal directive. In response, the Trump administration first threatened to withhold federal education funds, including support for school lunch programs and special education services. After state officials challenged the constitutionality of the threats, the Justice Department escalated the matter by initiating litigation in federal court.

How does the Trump administration interpret Title IX in the context of transgender inclusion?

The Trump administration’s legal challenge hinges on a strict interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any federally funded education program or activity. The administration contends that the term “sex” in Title IX refers solely to biological sex assigned at birth, not gender identity, and that allowing transgender athletes to participate in accordance with their gender identity violates the original intent of the statute.

This position reverses earlier guidance issued during the Obama administration, which expanded the interpretation of Title IX to include protections for transgender students. That 2016 guidance allowed transgender athletes to compete on teams aligning with their gender identity. While the Biden administration reinstated similar protections during its term, President Trump has since retracted them and codified a more restrictive view through executive action.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, who now leads the Department of Justice, argued that Maine’s inclusive sports policy compels schools to subject female athletes to unfair competition, undermining the integrity of women’s sports. Bondi has described the state’s refusal to enforce biological sex-based sports participation as “a violation of civil rights” under the administration’s current legal framework.

What has been Maine’s response to the lawsuit and federal threats?

Maine Governor Janet Mills has rejected the administration’s accusations and affirmed that the state will fight the lawsuit vigorously. She has stated that Maine’s laws are designed to protect students from discrimination, including those who are transgender, and that the Trump administration’s actions amount to political interference in state education policy.

Mills, along with Maine’s Department of Education, has maintained that state policies align with both the Maine Human Rights Act and the principles of equal access to education. She argued that transgender girls are girls and should be allowed to participate in sports accordingly. Maine is also among the states that have adopted inclusive guidelines backed by major medical and psychological associations, which recognize gender identity as a core aspect of student well-being.

The governor previously filed a countersuit challenging the federal government’s threat to withdraw education funding, describing it as “coercive and unconstitutional.” That case is now intertwined with the broader legal battle surrounding the Justice Department’s new lawsuit.

How does this case fit into the national landscape of transgender sports policy?

The legal clash between the Trump administration and Maine is the latest flashpoint in a nationwide debate over transgender rights in school athletics. As of April 2025, at least 26 states have passed laws that restrict transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports, citing concerns over competitive fairness and biological advantage. These measures have often been passed in Republican-led legislatures and signed by conservative governors as part of broader “parents’ rights” and “anti-woke” legislative agendas.

On the other hand, a smaller but significant group of states—including California, New York, and Maine—have implemented protections allowing students to participate based on gender identity. These states cite the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), all of which support inclusive policies under certain conditions.

Legal challenges to both restrictive and inclusive policies have intensified, with courts split on how to interpret Title IX in relation to gender identity. Some federal circuit courts have upheld transgender athletes’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, while others have sided with states enforcing biological sex-based participation rules.

What are the broader implications for Title IX and federal education policy?

This lawsuit could become a landmark case for how Title IX is interpreted in relation to transgender rights. If the federal court upholds the Trump administration’s position, it would represent a major shift in civil rights enforcement, with far-reaching consequences for school districts across the United States.

The case also tests the limits of federal authority in imposing conditions on states in exchange for education funding. Legal scholars have pointed out that while the federal government can attach conditions to funds, those conditions must be clearly stated and not unduly coercive. If courts determine that Maine is being strong-armed into compliance by the threat of losing funding, it could reshape the balance of power between state education departments and the U.S. Department of Education.

Beyond education law, the lawsuit also reflects a broader redefinition of civil rights under the Trump administration. Through a series of executive actions and administrative rules, the administration has sought to roll back gender identity protections across health care, housing, and education, arguing that such protections go beyond what Congress originally intended.

How are civil rights groups and legal experts responding to the Trump–Maine standoff?

Civil rights advocates and LGBTQ+ organisations have strongly criticised the lawsuit, describing it as a deliberate effort to erase protections for transgender youth. Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union have warned that the administration’s actions could increase bullying, mental health challenges, and dropout rates among transgender students.

Legal experts are closely watching the case to determine whether it signals a lasting shift in how courts interpret sex-based rights in the context of gender identity. The outcome could influence not only school sports policies, but also how public institutions define and enforce anti-discrimination standards under federal law.

Supporters of the administration argue that the lawsuit is necessary to restore fairness in women’s sports and to protect opportunities for biologically female athletes. They contend that biological differences in muscle mass, strength, and speed give transgender athletes an unfair advantage in competition, even after hormone therapy.

What’s at stake for students, schools, and the future of gender inclusion?

At its core, the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maine pits two competing visions of civil rights law against each other: one rooted in a fixed, biological understanding of sex, and another that recognises gender identity as integral to a person’s legal and social identity.

The stakes go beyond one state’s sports policy. A decision in favour of the administration could embolden other states to enforce exclusionary laws, while a victory for Maine may establish stronger judicial precedent for gender-affirming inclusion across public schools.

With a federal court now set to weigh in, the case will likely shape national education policy for years to come, determining how Title IX is applied in an era of evolving understandings of sex, gender, and equality.