Oregon Faces Title IX Lawsuit Over Males In Girls’ High School Sports

Authored by Scottie Barnes via The Epoch Times,

A conservative nonprofit filed a federal lawsuit July 8 on behalf of three Oregon high school girls alleging that the state’s education and athletic authorities violated federal anti-discrimination protections by allowing biological males to compete in girls’ track and field events.

The America First Policy Institute’s (AFPI) suit follows a formal complaint that it filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Office for Civil Rights earlier this year, alleging systemic violations of Title IX.

In a separate action, AFPI has also asked the office to expand the scope of an ongoing Title IX review to include alleged First Amendment rights violations of student athletes. 

‘That’s Not Equality’

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, details the challenges that the plaintiffs encountered when being forced to race against or give up their spot to male athletes identifying as female—including during high-profile events such as the Oregon state track and field championships.

Madelyn Eischen, a recent high school graduate, claims she withdrew from a major meet in protest after learning she would be competing against a male athlete in girls’ high jump. 

“We work too hard for our achievements to be erased like this,” she said through counsel.

Another plaintiff, whose name is being withheld as she is a minor, has competed in track and field since the fifth grade. As a sophomore, she broke the state record for the fastest 400-meter time ever run by a sophomore girl.

The lawsuit alleges that she went on to lose three times to the same male runner, including at the state championships. 

The girl also says she was harassed by supporters of the male athlete for declining to celebrate his victory over her in the girls’ 400-meter event at the 2024 state championships.

At one point, the athlete claims she was called into the principal’s office for a mental health checkup. 

The lawsuit also alleges that fights broke out among students, “placing the girl at the center of a volatile and harmful environment.”

“Title IX was passed to protect equal opportunity for females, not to take them away,” said Jessica Steinmann, executive general counsel at AFPI. “Girls in Oregon are being robbed of podium spots, scholarship chances, and the belief that their effort matters. That’s not equality—it’s discrimination.”

A Silent Statement

In a separate action, AFPI has asked the DOE to investigate whether the treatment of two female athletes during a May 31 track meet constitutes an additional violation of the rights guaranteed under Title IX and the First Amendment and to incorporate this incident into its ongoing investigation.

During the 2025 Oregon high school track and field state championships, high jumpers Alexa Anderson and Reese Eckard declined to stand on the podium alongside a male competitor. 

Instead, they stood in front of the podium, intending to make a silent statement about fairness in girls’ sports, wrote Steinmann and Leigh Ann O’Neill in a June 12 letter to DOE’s Office for Civil Rights. 

“Rather than respecting their constitutionally protected expression, an event official admonished the girls and instructed them to move off to the side and get out of the photos,” their letter says.

“This intervention was not prompted by any disruption, nor was there any violation of event rules. 

“The message was unmistakable: These young women were being punished for expressing dissent,” wrote Steinmann and O’Neill. 

Anderson said she was “confused” by the official’s actions and she didn’t understand “why we were being treated rudely since everything we did was peaceful.”

“Most of the other girls on the podium agreed with us and had planned to step down in protest,” she told The Epoch Times. But when the time came “and all eyes were on us, their plans changed.”

Turning the Tide

The Title IX lawsuit names the Oregon Department of Education, Gov. Tina Kotek (in her capacity as superintendent of public instruction), the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA), and three school districts as defendants.

The defendants have yet to respond to the lawsuit, however, OSAA defended its policies in 2024 when Executive Director Peter Weber explained to state lawmakers that OSAA’s policies follow federal and state laws, including those against discrimination. Weber wrote in a letter that Oregon law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and that the state legislature included gender identity as part of the definition of sexual orientation.

The Oregon case was filed just after the U.S. Supreme Court announced July 3 that it will hear two landmark challenges to state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that restrict male athletes from competing on teams that do not align with their biological sex. Those laws were previously struck down by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, respectively, with rulings that extended the logic of Bostock v. Clayton County to Title IX. In that 2020 case, justices ruled that firing someone for being gay or identifying as transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

It also follows a historic settlement between the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and the University of Pennsylvania in the case of swimmer Lia Thomas, who identifies as transgender and was stripped of all program records.

These actions are in the context of President Donald Trump’s executive order to prohibit transgender-identifying males from participating in girls’ and women’s sports or using female locker rooms.

Schools allowing males to participate in girls’ sports risk losing their federal funding under the order.

Earlier this year, Republican members of Congress tried and failed to pass a national ban on transgender participation in girls sports. 

Currently, 27 states have such a prohibition.

“At the heart of these cases is a simple question,” Steinmann said in a press release.

“Does Title IX mean what Congress intended—equal opportunity based on biological sex—or does it mean something else entirely? The court’s answer will shape the future of girls’ sports in America.”