This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hello! Just wanted to note I made a few changes to the article.
First, the intro previously—I think a bit awkwardly—characterized the law by who it would "only" allow on women's/girls' teams. I looked at the coverage of the case and the law itself, and I think it's fair to say both really speak in terms of who is banned from participating, not who is (exclusively) allowed to participate. Just by example, the bill's title includes "prohibiting biological males from participating on athletic teams or sports designated for biological females where competitive skill or contact is involved", and the text says "Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport." In terms of the coverage, here are articles that reflect the focus on who is banned (rather than who is allowed): NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg Law, New York Times (which is already cited).
I was a little apprehensive about the characterization of the district-court order, which I couldn't find a source backing. If the plaintiff challenged the law on both constitutional and statutory grounds (which she did), I feel almost certain that the district court order must have ruled on both of those grounds (both because a partial ruling wouldn't dispose of the case and the principle of constitutional avoidance). Of course, that's OR, but I couldn't find a reliable source saying the district court exclusively ruled on the constitutional grounds, and I did find primary sources discussing the district-court opinion, which said it had ruled on both matters.
I also couldn't find a source saying that the mother was a co-plaintiff. She very well may have been, and the Washington Post came close to saying she was (saying something like "the girl and her mother say ..."), but I wasn't sure. (I could always get on pacer and look it up, but 10 cents a page adds up.)
