Alliance Defending Freedom seeks court approval to defend Washington’s girls’ sports ban

Key points

• ADF filed a motion on November 13 to allow Female Athletes United to join the case as a defendant to defend Initiative 638.
• Initiative 638 requires female athletes to provide healthcare provider verification of their biological sex and bans biological males from girls’ sports.
• The lawsuit challenging the measure was filed by the ACLU of Washington, Legal Voice, Pacifica Law Group, the Washington Education Association, and TransFamilies.
• Plaintiffs argue the measure violates the Washington state constitution by imposing intrusive verification requirements on girls but not boys.
• ADF attorney Hal Frampton stated that the state’s previous defense of transgender participation creates a conflict, preventing it from advancing all necessary legal arguments.
• The initiative is scheduled to take effect on December 3, with the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association preparing to align rules accordingly.

Background

Initiative 638 was approved by Washington voters on November 3, 2026, following months of debate and high-profile incidents, including a cross-country boycott by Camas High School girls in October. The measure mandates medical tests, such as hormone or chromosome checks, for girls’ sports eligibility, a policy that has faced legal challenges in other states. Prior to the vote, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association considered but rejected similar amendments, citing state law conflicts.

How outlets are covering it

Alliance Defending Freedom and Female Athletes United argue that the state cannot vigorously defend the initiative due to the Attorney General’s office’s prior support for transgender rights and conflicts of interest. They emphasize the need to protect fair competition and safety for cisgender girls. Conversely, the ACLU, Legal Voice, and Pacifica Law Group contend that the measure discriminates against transgender girls and imposes invasive privacy violations on all female athletes. Attorney General Nick Brown appointed an outside law firm, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, to defend the initiative, stating that his office must continue its work protecting transgender rights while respecting the voters’ will. Critics, including conservative commentator Brandi Kruse, argue that Brown’s office cannot be trusted to defend a measure he opposes, while supporters like Let’s Go Washington maintain that the verification process is a simple eligibility check that does not violate privacy.

Why it matters

The legal battle over Initiative 638 sets a precedent for how states will handle gender-based eligibility in school sports. The outcome will determine whether medical verification requirements are upheld or struck down, impacting thousands of student athletes across Washington. The case also highlights the tension between voter-approved measures and existing civil rights protections, with potential implications for similar initiatives in other states.

What to watch

The King County Superior Court will review ADF’s motion to intervene. If granted, Female Athletes United will join the state in defending Initiative 638. The court must also decide whether to issue an injunction to block the measure from taking effect on December 3. The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association will finalize its rules to comply with the initiative if it remains in effect.