ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

A federal judge in Arizona has allowed two transgender girls to play at their respective schools despite a 2022 state law that spells out that teams designated for women or girls "may not be open to students of the male sex.'' And by "sex,'' what's been dubbed the Save Women's Sport Act by the Republican-controlled Legislature means the one assigned at birth based on a baby's sex organs.

That ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

State schools chief Tom Horne is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review, joined by GOP legislative leaders. But the justices have so far left the lower court orders in place — and allowed the girls to continue to play while they consider similar laws in other states.

Arguments for and against those bans in Idaho and West Virginia were presented Tuesday, with arguments around whether being born male always means having an unfair advantage, especially if the student has not yet entered puberty or has been treated with puberty blockers.

The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, arguments Tuesday indicated.

A ruling is expected later this year.

In the meantime, one of the two transgender girls has asked to be dismissed from the Arizona case.

Identified in court documents only as Megan Roe, her attorneys said she has played volleyball at The Gregory School in Tucson for the past three years.

"She is now a senior in high school and has completed her final volleyball season,'' the court papers state. "Going forward, she does not desire or intend to play girls' sports — either at the high school or collegiate level.''

And that, they said, means she no longer has standing to challenge the Arizona law.

That's not the case for the other transgender girl, identified as Jane Doe, who was an 11-year-old elementary school student when the lawsuit was filed in 2023. She is now a student at Kyrene Aprende Middle School in Chandler and continues to participate in sports under the original order by U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps.

Strictly speaking, Zipps did not void the 2022 law.

Instead, she said it cannot be applied to the two individuals who sued. That is because the judge said there was evidence that the two plaintiffs either had not entered puberty or were given puberty blockers, meaning they had no more inherent strength than boys of the same age.

The judge rejected arguments by Horne, who presented his own medical studies.

But what Zipps has ruled — and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld — could set precedent as other transgender girls in Arizona seek to participate in girls' sports.

How many there might be, however, is unclear.

In upholding the lower court ruling, appellate Judge Morgan Christen pointed out that, until the 2022 law was enacted, the question of who can play on what team was handled on a case-by-case basis by the Arizona Interscholastic Association.

Its rules allowed transgender girls to play on girls' teams when a committee of experts found "that the student's request is appropriate and is not motivated by an improper purpose and there is no adverse health risk to the athlete.''

And Christen said that hardly created a flood.

"In the dozen or so years before adoption of the act, the AIA approved just seven transgender students to play on teams consistent with their gender identities — a tiny number when compared to the roughly 170,000 students playing sports in Arizona each year,'' the judge wrote.

What the Arizona law does, Christen wrote, is replace that with a one-size-fits-all approach.

What that means, she said, is the law applies to children who are too young to have gone through puberty, transgender women and girls who have received puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy and have never gone through male puberty, and transgender girls who have experience male puberty but have received hormone therapy to suppress circulating testosterone levels.

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Idaho and West Virginia laws, that may not allow Arizona to enforce its own ban. Attorneys for Doe contend that the issues raised here are different.

One is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which says that those with disabilities cannot be excluded from participation or be subject to discrimination. The other is the federal Rehabilitation Act, which extends that protection to any program that receives federal financial assistance.

And then there's the fact that the ruling by Zipps did not void the entire 2022 Arizona law but simply said that it cannot be applied to the transgender girls who sued.

"Moreover, the factual records in the cases before the Supreme Court are different from those here, including involving different expert evidence and legislative history from the Arizona Legislature,'' the lawyers have argued. They say only after the high court rules on the Idaho and West Virginia laws is it appropriate for judges to consider how that affects the Arizona statute.