SEATTLE, Wash. — Parents of transgender and cisgender student athletes, along with two education and advocacy organizations, filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block a voter-approved Washington initiative that would prohibit transgender girls from participating in girls’ school sports and require girls to undergo a new medical verification process before competing.
The lawsuit, filed Nov. 9 in King County Superior Court, challenges Initiative 638, which voters approved in the Nov. 3 election. The measure is scheduled to take effect Dec. 3 unless a court intervenes.
The plaintiffs include TransFamilies, a nonprofit supporting transgender children and their families, the Washington Education Association and parents of seven students who participate in girls’ school athletics.
They argue that the initiative violates Washington’s constitutional protections for privacy, equal rights and public education by imposing medical verification requirements on girls that do not apply to boys.
Initiative 638 would prohibit students classified as biologically male from participating in athletic competitions designated exclusively for female students, effectively excluding transgender girls from girls’ school sports.
The measure also requires students seeking to compete in girls’ athletics to provide documentation from a personal health care provider verifying their biological sex based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or naturally produced testosterone levels.
Although the verification would be incorporated into the existing sports physical process, the plaintiffs argue that the additional requirement creates the possibility of invasive examinations or testing involving students’ bodies, genetics and hormone levels.
The initiative does not expressly require every girl to undergo a genital examination, genetic test or blood test. However, the lawsuit argues that the criteria specified in the measure authorize or encourage such procedures.
No comparable sex verification requirement would apply to students participating in boys’ sports.
The plaintiffs contend that this unequal treatment violates Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, as well as Article I, Section 7 of the state Constitution, which protects individuals against government intrusion into their private affairs.
The lawsuit also invokes Article IX, Section 1, which establishes the state’s paramount duty to provide public education, arguing that excluding transgender girls and imposing additional requirements on female athletes interferes with equal educational opportunities.
In addition, the plaintiffs argue that the initiative violates Article II, Section 37 of the Washington Constitution by effectively amending existing antidiscrimination protections without properly identifying those changes in the measure’s text.
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination includes protections based on gender identity, and the lawsuit contends that Initiative 638 conflicts with those existing protections.
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Legal Voice and Pacifica Law Group.
The complaint identifies the parent plaintiffs through pseudonyms to protect the privacy of their children.
One plaintiff, identified as Doe A, is the parent of a transgender student who has participated in girls’ sports for years. The lawsuit alleges that the initiative could force the student to disclose her transgender status to people who were previously unaware of it.
Other plaintiffs are parents of cisgender girls who object to the additional medical scrutiny their daughters could face simply because they participate in girls’ athletics.
The plaintiffs argue that the requirements could discourage students from participating in sports and expose sensitive medical information without sufficient justification.
Julia Marks, managing director of Legal Voice, criticized the verification requirement and its potential consequences for students.
“Think about what this law actually does: it creates an invasive surveillance process that could traumatize young girls across Washington — all in the name of discriminating against trans people,” Marks said.
Adrien Leavitt, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Washington, said the measure threatens opportunities for transgender students to participate in school activities.
“Sports give young people a place to make friends and be part of a team, but Initiative 638 seeks to deny transgender girls those opportunities,” Leavitt said.
“Washington has long had strong protections against discrimination. We will fight to stop this law from taking effect and prevent this needless attack on youth in our state.”
Washington has permitted transgender students to participate on school athletic teams consistent with their gender identity under policies adopted by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association beginning in 2007.
The association has reported that approximately 10 student athletes have disclosed being transgender, although disclosure is not required, making the actual number uncertain.
Supporters of Initiative 638, including the political organization Let’s Go Washington, argue that the measure is necessary to preserve fairness in girls’ athletics.
The organization, founded by conservative political donor Brian Heywood, maintains that the initiative does not require additional invasive medical examinations because students already undergo physical examinations before participating in school sports.
Let’s Go Washington has also disputed claims that the measure requires genital examinations, genetic testing or blood testing.
Darren Littell, the organization’s executive director, defended the initiative following the filing of the lawsuit, arguing that voters had endorsed restrictions intended to protect girls’ athletic competitions.
The Washington Attorney General’s Office is responsible for defending voter-approved initiatives against legal challenges.
Attorney General spokesperson Mike Faulk told the Washington State Standard that the office would review the litigation and determine its next steps.
“When a new law is passed by the people or the Legislature, our role is to ensure it is defended regardless of our personal views about the policy,” Faulk said.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that Initiative 638 is unconstitutional, along with preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing its enforcement.
They are also requesting emergency relief to prevent the measure from taking effect Dec. 3 while the constitutional challenge proceeds.
Unless the court grants that relief, the new restrictions on transgender participation and the medical verification requirements for girls’ school sports are scheduled to take effect next month.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
