A Biden-appointed federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit against California's policy allowing biological males to compete in girls' sports, sidestepping the Title IX question entirely and leaving the state's rules intact while the DOJ weighs an appeal.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela threw out the case not because the government's argument lacked merit, but because she found the federal government failed to give California adequate prior notice before threatening to withhold $44.3 billion in education funding. The ruling, issued Monday and made public Tuesday, granted California's motion to dismiss without ever reaching the core question: whether Title IX, the 1972 law guaranteeing equal athletic opportunities for women, requires schools to separate competitors by biological sex.
The DOJ filed the lawsuit to force California to stop allowing biological males who identify as female to compete on girls' sports teams. Instead of a ruling on the substance, the court handed the state a procedural win that keeps its transgender athlete policy fully in place, a policy that has been on the books since 2013.
Judge Valenzuela grounded her dismissal in administrative funding rules. The federal government, she found, never gave California explicit prior notice that its education dollars were at risk. That procedural gap was enough to end the case before any evidence about biological fairness reached the courtroom.
The decision is a significant setback for the White House. Just The News reported that Valenzuela granted California's motion to dismiss without even addressing the government's core Title IX argument, that schools must protect equal access to sports based on biological sex. The court, in other words, found a procedural off-ramp and took it.
A DOJ spokesperson responded bluntly, as OutKick reported:
"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."
The DOJ confirmed it is reviewing options for appeal. Whether the administration refiles with corrected procedural footing or takes the case to a higher court remains an open question.
It is not the first time a federal court has handed the administration a procedural loss on a priority enforcement action. A recent Fifth Circuit ruling on ICE detention similarly blocked a Trump enforcement push on technical legal grounds rather than engaging the policy's merits.
The lawsuit did not arise in a vacuum. It followed a firestorm over AB Hernandez, a transgender athlete at Jurupa Valley High School in Southern California who captured four state titles across the 2025 and 2026 CIF State Track & Field Championships. Hernandez won back-to-back victories in the high jump and triple jump and added a third-place finish in the 2026 long jump.
The California Interscholastic Federation's response to the controversy was telling. Rather than revisit its eligibility rules, CIF created duplicate medals for the female athletes who were pushed down the podium by Hernandez's results. The federation treated the problem as a public-relations matter, hand out extra hardware, rather than a competitive-fairness matter.
Hernandez also joined the girls' varsity volleyball team. Multiple rival high schools chose to forfeit matches rather than compete against Hernandez, a quiet protest by coaches and families who concluded the playing field was not level.
On May 10, 2025, girls' track and field athletes staged a public protest against trans inclusion in girls' sports at a postseason meet at Yorba Linda High School in Southern California. Weeks later, at the CIF State Track & Field Championships in Clovis, spectators held "Save Girls Sports" signs during the competition.
Progressives have argued that fewer than ten transgender athletes compete among California's millions of students, framing the issue as negligible. But the girls who lost state titles to a biological male competitor, and the schools that forfeited rather than field their teams, experienced something more concrete than a statistical footnote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the authority of states to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. The New York Post noted that the high court recently upheld transgender sports bans in West Virginia and Idaho but did not establish a nationwide requirement, leaving states like California free to go their own way.
California has gone its own way since 2013. Under Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration, Sacramento lawmakers and CIF have maintained a policy allowing biological males who identify as female to compete on girls' teams. The Supreme Court's ruling gave states the power to protect female athletes. California chose not to use it.
That pattern, courts affirming state authority while blue states decline to act, has become familiar. The Supreme Court's recent ruling on birthright citizenship similarly drew a line between what the Constitution permits and what elected officials choose to do with that permission.
Breitbart reported that Judge Valenzuela is a Biden appointee, a detail that adds political context to a ruling that avoided the merits entirely. The case was brought by two Trump administration officials and was triggered in part by Hernandez's medal-winning performances at the CIF championships.
The dismissal does not resolve the underlying legal question. Title IX was enacted in 1972 to guarantee equal opportunities for female athletes. Whether allowing biological males to compete in girls' events violates that guarantee remains unlitigated in this case. The court never weighed the evidence. It never examined the competitive data. It found a procedural deficiency and closed the door.
Jennifer Sey, founder and CEO of XX-XY Athletics, has argued that biological males competing in girls' sports undermines fair competition and has advocated for national and state legislation to uphold Title IX's original intent. Her position reflects a growing movement among parents, athletes, and advocates who see the procedural dismissal as a delay, not a resolution.
The DOJ now faces a choice: refile with the procedural notice requirements satisfied, or appeal Valenzuela's ruling to a higher court. Either path means more time, time during which California's policy stays in force and biological males remain eligible for girls' teams.
Courts across the country have become the primary battleground for the administration's enforcement priorities. A recent federal ruling dismissing a seditious conspiracy case at the DOJ's own request showed the department can move decisively when it chooses. On California's trans athlete policy, the department now needs to regroup.
Meanwhile, the girls who lost championships, the teams that forfeited rather than compete on an uneven field, and the families who protested at Yorba Linda and Clovis are still waiting for a court to address the question that actually matters. Judge Valenzuela made sure this was not that court.
Several open questions remain. Which specific schools forfeited volleyball matches against Hernandez, and how many total? Has the DOJ formally filed a notice of appeal, or is the review still ongoing? And what specific arguments did federal lawyers present regarding the notice they gave California about the $44.3 billion funding threat, arguments the court apparently found insufficient?
California's political leadership has shown no interest in revisiting the policy voluntarily. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has publicly criticized a California "compromise" on the issue, telling Newsom to "pick a side." Sacramento's side appears chosen: biological males stay on girls' teams, and the state will fight in court to keep it that way.
The California courts have their own contested docket on politically charged questions, but on this issue, the state's position is clear and unyielding.
Title IX was written to give girls a fair shot. Fifty-four years later, a federal judge dismissed the case that tried to enforce it, not because the law doesn't apply, but because the paperwork wasn't right. The girls on the podium are still waiting for someone to get it right.
