Filed Date: Feb. 12, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The four plaintiffs in this case are high school track athletes who alleged that having to compete against transgender girls (consistently referred to as "biological males" in their briefs) in girls' track events has caused the plaintiffs to lose out on significant opportunities to win competitions and further advance in their track careers. They filed suit on February 12, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against their school districts and the Connecticut Interschool Athletic Conference, represented by the nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom. They alleged violations of Title IX and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with a preliminary injunction to prevent transgender athletes from competing in girls' events for the spring 2020 track season.
Background
Specifically, the student-athlete plaintiffs alleged that by allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls' sporting events, the defendant school districts violate rights of other girls competing in high school sports under Title IX in two ways. First, the plaintiffs complained, they failed to provide effective accommodation for the interests and abilities of girls by failing to provide an appropriate competitive environment for girls. Second, they failed to provide equal treatment, benefits, and opportunities for girls as compared to boys' sports.
Procedural History
This case was filed just as the COVID-19 pandemic was beginning to affect the operations of public schools across the country. On April 8, 2020, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by Judge Robert N. Chatigny, who stated that it was highly unlikely that the spring track season would occur and that therefore plaintiffs had no need of preliminary relief. A more detailed scheduling order was filed, with settlement conferences and trial both scheduled for 2021.
Several additional parties took an interest in this case. On February 21, 2020, two transgender students who were repeatedly named in the complaint filed a motion to intervene as defendants, which was granted by the court on April 22, 2020. They were represented by the ACLU and the ACLU of Connecticut. On March 24, 2020, the United States filed a statement of interest through the Department of Justice indicating support for the plaintiffs' position. On April 20, 2020, the school district defendants filed a motion to join the Department of Education (DOE) as a party to the case. They noted that the plaintiffs in this case had also filed a DOE Office of Civil Rights (OCR) complaint, and they were worried about getting two different outcomes if DOE was involved in the OCR complaint, but not in this lawsuit. They also expressed confusion that the United States had indicated an interest in this case through its March 24 filing, but that the DOE, which is responsible for interpreting and enforcing Title IX, was not involved. The DOE submitted a memorandum in opposition to joinder on May 11, 2020.
On April 16, 2020, during a telephone hearing, Judge Chatigny instructed plaintiffs' counsel to refer to the intervenors as "transgender females" rather than as "males." On May 8, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify, alleging that this order indicated a lack of impartiality and rejected the core arguments of plaintiffs' lawsuit. The judge denied the motion on June 16, 2020. In response, plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court judge should be compelled to recuse himself due to bias. The Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition in November 2020, holding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the district court judge clearly and indisputably abused his discretion.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 11, 2020, adding language about the harms caused by specific defendants to specific plaintiffs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 21, 2020 for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The United States, now under the Biden administration, withdrew its statement of interest in the case, concluding that the policy statements provided by the DOE under the Trump administration were issued “without the review required for agency guidance documents that set out policy on a regulatory issue.” Because of this withdrawal, the district court denied the defendants’ earlier motion for joinder on March 30, 2021.
Motion to Dismiss
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on April 25, 2021. 2021 WL 1617206. The court found that plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the CIAC policy was moot because the two named defendants had graduated, and there was no indication that plaintiffs would encounter competition from any other transgender student who would be participating in girls’ track during their time left in school. Even if they would encounter similar competition, though, the court still found that a legally cognizable injury to these plaintiffs would depend on a transgender student running in the same events and achieving substantially similar times – a “speculative contingency” insufficient to be a case or controversy under the Constitution.
Additionally, the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction requiring changes in the defendants’ records. Plaintiffs sought an order requiring the defendants to revise records of races in which two of the named defendants competed by eliminating them from the order of finish and moving everyone else up one position. Plaintiffs contended that the revisions were relevant to their ability to get scholarships and jobs in the future. Defendants argued that it was not likely that this requested relief would be redressed by a favorable decision, given that “gauging the effect of the requested revisions on prospective employers require[d] guesswork” about how independent decision-makers would exercise their judgment. The court agreed.
Finally, plaintiffs argued that even if their claims to injunctive relief were barred, they still had a claim for monetary relief. The court found that defendants had not received the requisite notice under Title IX that they could be liable for the conduct at issue, and thus money damages were barred. Given that plaintiffs’ claims for both injunctive and monetary relief could not move forward, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Appeal
Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of the case to the Second Circuit on May 26, 2021. On December 16, 2022, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. 57 F.4th 43. The Second Circuit held that the claim for an injunction against the school policy was moot, which the plaintiffs had conceded on appeal. It also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction requiring the school to revise the records because they had not demonstrated any injury or shown how this relief would fix that injury. As to the claim for monetary relief, the Second Circuit held that the school lacked notice that their policy violated Title IX. As part of its reasoning for this holding, the Second Circuit noted that Title IX’s sex discrimination language tracks that of Title VII, and the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII bans discrimination against transgender people.
On February 13, 2023, the Second Circuit announced that it would re-hear the case en banc. Oral arguments were held on June 6, 2023.
On December 15, 2023, the en banc court reversed the opinion of the panel and vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit issued a divided opinion, with three concurrences, three partial concurrences, and several dissenting judges. The opinion did not analyze the merits of the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, but only considered whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue and whether they could seek injunctive relief and/or monetary damages. Overall, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs established Article III standing at this point in the litigation because they alleged an injury, in the form of lost competition opportunities, and that this could be plausibly redressable by monetary and injunctive relief. The Second Circuit also vacated the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages, holding that the court should wait to decide that issue until ruling on the merits of the case. Therefore, the Second Circuit remanded the case so the district court could address the merits of the Title IX claim. 90 F.4th 34.
Remand
Back in the district court, on March 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included an expansion of factual allegations and modified the request relief to be focused on correcting historical athletic records, rather than prohibiting participation in competitions. The defendants moved to dismiss that complaint the next month, on April 3.
On November 5, 2024, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ plausibly alleged a disparate-treatment claim and that the plaintiffs’ home school could potentially be found liable for discrimination in violation of Title IX. The court found that under McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green three-step analysis framework, the plaintiffs’ sufficiently alleged a prima facie case by showing that competitive opportunities for the plaintiffs were diminished as a result of the defendants’ actions; specifically, they were displaced from podium positions and advanced competition levels due to the superior biological capabilities of the transgender athletes participating in the competitions. Furthermore, the court found that the discrimination was substantial enough, as it affected every race and team where transgender athletes competed.
On January 2, 2025, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson to conduct a settlement conference. On March 7, 2025, the court found settlement conferences to be unproductive.
On July 16, 2025, the case was reassigned to Judge Sarala V. Nagala for all further proceedings.
On August 4, 2025, the defendants’ filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. In Hecox, the Supreme Court is examining the question "[w]hether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The certified questions in B.P.J. are (1) "[w]hether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth" and (2) "[w]hether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys and girls sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth." The court granted the motion in part, except for completion of written discovery, on August 28, 2025, agreeing with the defendants that the questions at law in the above two cases could impact the case at hand. The court further emphasized that requiring the defendants to engage in costly discovery would be unduly burdensome and inefficient if such efforts would need to be done again. Therefore, the stay applied to depositions, expert discovery, and motion practice. Since the parties stipulated to the court that written discovery was nearly complete, the court found that the resources required to complete it would be considerably less than those required for depositions, expert discovery, and dispositive motions, and therefore, did not extend the stay to written discovery.
As of April 17, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Hetali Lodaya (6/1/2020)
Zoe Goldstein (4/11/2022)
Venesa Haska (2/2/2024)
Liat Sinclair (4/17/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16835048/parties/soule-v-connecticut-association-of-schools-inc/
-, Roger Brooks, (Connecticut)
-, Cody S. (Connecticut)
-, Kaitlyn Schiraldi, (Connecticut)
-, J. Matthew (Connecticut)
-, Timothy Belz, (Connecticut)
-, Roger Brooks, (Connecticut)
-, Christiana M. (Connecticut)
Beecher, Suzanne (Connecticut)
Brooks, Roger Greenwood (Arizona)
Dill, Andrea Regan (Connecticut)
Fox, Susan Patton (Connecticut)
Holcomb, Christiana (District of Columbia)
Kiefer, Christiana M. (Connecticut)
Scruggs, Jonathan A. (Connecticut)
Shafer, Jeffrey A (District of Columbia)
-, Johanna Zelman, (Connecticut)
-, Lindsey Kaley, (Connecticut)
-, Elana Bildner, (Connecticut)
Attorney, Michael Roberts, (Connecticut)
Bildner, Elana Spungen (Connecticut)
Bosse, Kimberly A. (Connecticut)
Jones, Gregory A (Connecticut)
Mar, Ria Tabacco (Connecticut)
Monastersky, David S (Connecticut)
Murphy, Peter Joseph (Connecticut)
-, Kaitlyn Schiraldi, (Connecticut)
-, Timothy Belz, (Connecticut)
-, Mark Christopher (Connecticut)
-, Jamison Davies, (Connecticut)
-, William Bock, (Connecticut)
-, Sarah Elizabeth (Connecticut)
-, Jacob Phillips, (Connecticut)
-, Geoffrey Pipoly, (Connecticut)
-, Jacey Norris, (Connecticut)
-, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, (Connecticut)
-, Diana Katherine (Connecticut)
-, Melissa McCall, (Connecticut)
-, Matthew Benedetto, (Connecticut)
-, Jennifer Vail, (Connecticut)
-, Edward Mechmann, (Connecticut)
-, Gary Lawkowski, (Connecticut)
-, Clark Lassiter (Connecticut)
-, Shireen Barday, (Connecticut)
Attorney, Jessica Lynn (Connecticut)
Attorney, Braden W. (Connecticut)
Attorney, Jonathan R. (Connecticut)
Barr, William P. (District of Columbia)
Counsel, Richard Paul (Connecticut)
Counsel, Chase Henry (Connecticut)
Counsel, Mario Diaz, (Connecticut)
Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)
Esseks, James Dixon (New York)
Gardner, Joshua Edward (District of Columbia)
Professor, Lawrence A. (Connecticut)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16835048/soule-v-connecticut-association-of-schools-inc/
Last updated June 2, 2026, 2:31 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 12, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four high school track athletes in Connecticut.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Non-profit or advocacy
Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc.
School District
Bloomfield Public Schools
Canton Public Schools
Cromwell Public Schools
Danbury Public Schools
Glastonbury Public Schools
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of Connecticut 3:20-cv-00201
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 21-01365
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc., Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17441/ (last updated 4/17/2026).