Federal Judge Throws Out Minnesota Lawsuit Challenging Biological Reality

A federal judge last week threw out most of a Minnesota state lawsuit challenging the federal government’s protection of biological reality.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued the Trump administration in April 2025 to stop the enforcement of two executive orders: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which defines sex as biological and binary, and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which prohibits the federal government from funding educational organizations that allow boys to play girls sports.

Together, the executive orders reestablished the power and integrity Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, after years of confusion.

Attorney General Ellison sued to stop the enforcement of “Defending Women” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” after the Trump administration threatened to withhold Minnesota’s federal education funding for violating Title IX.

Minnesota public schools allow students to use bathrooms and play sports consistent with their “gender identity” — what gender ideology activists calls “a person’s internal sense of being male or female.”

Ellison’s suit challenged the executive orders’ interpretation of Title IX, arguing the definition of “sex” in the statute could be plausibly expanded to include “gender identity” because the language of Title IX neither specifically references “biological” sex nor explicitly excludes transgender-identified boys from participating in girls sports.

Title IX’s failure to explicitly ban boys from competing in girls sports does not mean Congress intended Title IX to allow transgender-identified boys to participate in girls sports. This is a false dichotomy.

Given Title IX passed in 1972, it’s far more likely Congress never imagined “sex” could mean anything other than biological sex.

But Minnesota redefined “sex” in Title IX anyway.

In February 2025, Ellison issued an opinion declaring Minnesota’s Declaration of Human Rights, which protects citizens based on “gender identity,” superseded “Defending Women” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

Consequently, Ellison’s suit argued the executive orders violate the Tenth Amendment, which protects state’s rights, because the government can’t enforce executive orders which directly conflict with state law.

Minnesota District Chief Judge Eric Tostrud rejected Ellison’s Tenth Amendment argument and Title IX challenge in his ruling issued on August 10, 2026.

The judge cited Supreme Court precedent finding the federal government can attach spending restrictions meant for the “general welfare” to federal funds. These spending restrictions do not violate the Tenth Amendment, he noted, so long as states can freely choose to accept the money.

Torstrud also denied the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX violated the executive branch’s constitutional power to determine law, writing:

As the Eighth Circuit recently explained, “There can be no dispute that whether Title IX … permits[] or prohibits the participation of transgender[-identified] athletes in female athletics remains an open question of law.”

He further cited the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in State of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, which upheld state laws separating sports by sex.

“The Supreme Court’s determination that ‘sex’ in Title IX refers to biological sex provides at least some support for the [Trump administration’s] interpretation of the statute,” Torstrud explained.

The judge did not entirely dismiss Ellison’s suit. He agreed the Trump administration did not give Minnesota enough warning regarding the changes to Title IX to warrant rescinding its federal funding.

However, Torstrud also noted Minnesota has yet to experience any injury. The Trump administration’s findings and letters warning the state it violated Title IX by failing to separate sports and private spaces by sex do not themselves constitute a legal violation, the judge ruled.

In denying Ellison’s first two claims, Torstrud not only legitimized the federal government’s right to enforce the law of the land, but acknowledged the legal validity of biological reality.

We wish it were less surprising when courts acknowledge the existence of “male” and “female.” But, too often, judges happily side with those like Attorney General Ellison, who claimed the Trump administration’s definition of “sex” — “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female” — was “inconsistent with decades of scientific research and evidence on how human bodies develop, physically and cognitively.”

On the contrary, it is Ellison’s denial of sex which ignores biological fact, scientific evidence and common sense.

We are always grateful when truth prevails.

Daily Citizen is a news division of Focus on the Family that provides a faith-based perspective to counter the mainstream media’s anti-Christian bias.