# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 30 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

D.M., a m in or , by Bao Xio ng , th e m ot he r, le ga l g ua rd ia n, an d n ex t fr ie nd of D.M .; Z.G., a m in or , by Jo el Green wald , th e fat he r, le ga l g ua rd ia n, an d n ex t fr ie nd of Z.G.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Mi nn es ot a St at e Hig h S ch oo l Lea gu e; Bo nn ie Sp oh n- Sch m al tz , in he r of fic ia l

cap aci ty as Pres id en t o f th e Bo ard of Di rect or s fo r th e Mi nn es ot a St at e Hig h S ch oo l Leag ue ; Eri ch Mart en s, i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as Exe cu ti ve Dire ct or of t he

Mi nn es ot a St at e Hig h S ch oo l Lea gu e; Crai g P erry, in h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as an
Ass oc ia te Dire ct or of t he Mi nn es ot a St at e Hig h S ch oo l Lea gu e; Bo b M ad is on , in hi s of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as an Ass oc ia te Dire ct or of t he Mi nn es ot a St at e Hig h S ch oo l Lea gu e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Mi ss ou ri S ta te Hig h S ch oo l Act iv it ie s As so ci at io n; Arka ns as Acti vi ti es Ass oc ia ti on ; Neb ras ka Sch oo l Act iv it ie s As so ci at io n; Nort h Dak ot a Hig h S ch oo l Act iv it ie s Ass oc ia ti on ; Nat io na l Fe de rat io n o f St at e Hig h S ch oo l As so ci at io ns

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el le e(s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Decem be r 12 , 20 18

Fi le d: Marc h 6 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

In 20 18

, two bo y s su ed th ei r st at e’s hi gh sc ho ol at hl et ic le ag ue an d se ve ral of it s

of fic ers fo r de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The bo y s al le ge d

th at th e le ag ue vi ol at ed th ei r rig ht s un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t to th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on an d un de r Tit le IX of th e Edu cat io n Am en dm en ts

of 19 72

, 20 U.S.C. §§ 16 81 –8 8 (“ Tit le IX”). Sp eci fic al ly, th ey cl ai m ed th at th e le ag ue

un la wfu ll y di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t th em on th e ba si s of se x th ro ug h it s r u l e pr oh ib it in g

bo y s fro m pa rti ci pa ti n g o n hi gh sc ho ol co m pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s. The di st ric t co ur t

d en ie d th e bo y s’ m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n, an d th ey ap pe al ed

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 92 (a)( 1)

, w e rev ers e an d di rect t h e d i st ric t co ur t to

en te r a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n.

I.
App el la nt s D.M. an d Z.G. are si xt een -y ear- ol d bo y s w ho at te nd hi gh sc ho ol in

Map le woo d an d Mi nn et on ka

, Mi nn es ot a, res pe ct iv el y

. Bo th are in th e el ev en th gr ad e.

Bo th are pa ss io na te ab ou t da nc e an d ha v e p a r t ic ip at ed in va rio us da nc e cl as se s an d

pr og ram s

. B o t h w a nt to da nc e on th ei r sc ho ol s’ co m pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s bu t, fo r

reas on s ex pl ai ne d b el ow, h av e b een pro hi bi te d fr om do in g s o.

App el le e M i n n e s o t a St at e Hig h Sch oo l Leag ue (th e “ Leag ue ”) is a no n- pr of it

co rp or at io n th at is a vo lu nt ary as so ci at io n of hi gh sc ho ol s. The Leag ue e x e r c i se s

au th or it y de le ga te d to i t b y t h e hi gh sc ho ol s to co nt ro l hi gh sc ho ol ex tra cu rri cu la r

act iv it ie s an d sp or ts th ro ug ho ut th e st at e. To ob ta in an d m ai nt ai n su ch co nt ro l, th e

-2

-Leag ue pa ss es bylaws an d ru le s th a t se t fo rth th e st an da rd s m em be r sc ho ol s us e to

reg ul at e an d s up erv is e th os e act iv it ie s an d s po rts

.

The Leag ue ’s By la w 41 2 li m it s pa rti ci p a t i o n on a sc ho ol ’s co m pe ti ti ve da nc e

te am to fem al es

. The Leag ue cl ai m s th at t h e r e a s o n fo r th is li m it at io n is th at gi rls ’

“ ov eral l at hl et ic op po rtu ni ti es ha ve pr ev io us ly be en li m it ed ,” whe reas bo y s’ ha ve no t.

To su pp or t it s cl ai m , th e Leag ue po in ts to da ta co m pi le d by Am ic us Nati on al Fed erat io n

of Hig h Sch oo l Ath le ti c Ass oc ia ti on s (“ NFHS”). The Leag ue al so rel ie s on Mi nn es ot a

la w, whi ch al lo ws for gen de r-b as ed

, at hl et ic li m it at io ns in cert ai n c irc um st an ces

. See

Mi nn

. St at

. § 12 1A.0 4, su bd iv

. 3 ( “ [ I]n at hl et ic pr og ram s op erat ed by ed uc at io na l

in st it ut io ns or p ub li c se rv ic es an d d es ig ne d fo r pa rti ci pa nt s 12 y ears ol d or o ld er o r in

th e 7t h gr ad e or ab ov e, it is no t an un fai r di sc riminat or y pr act ic e to res tri ct m em be rs hi p

on an at hl et ic te am to pa rti ci pa nt s of on e se x who se ov eral l at hl et ic op po rtu ni ti es ha ve

pr ev io us ly be en li m it ed .”). Pu rs ua nt to By la w 41 2, ne it he r D.M. no r Z. G

. ha ve be en

al lo wed to pa rti ci pa te on th ei r sc ho ol s’ com pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s.

D.M. an d Z.G. su ed th e Leag ue in Ju ly 20 18 fo r al le ge dl y vi ol at in g Tit le IX an d

th ei r rig ht s to eq ua l pr ot ect io n un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, th e

bo y s m ov ed fo r a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n of By la w 41 2 as it pe r t a i n s t o b o y s an d

co m pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Des pi te fin di ng th at th e

b o ys s u ffer ed irr ep arab le ha rm an d th at “ th e ba la nc e of ha rm s m ay fav or ” th em , t h e

di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e in jun ct io n was no t warra nt ed be cau se th e bo y s were no t

li ke ly to pr ev ai l on th e m eri ts

. The di st ric t co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at th e pu bl ic in te res t,

as refl ect ed in Mi nn es ot a St at ut e se ct io n 12 1A.0 4, fav or ed de nyin g th e in jun ct io n. The

c o u r t ex pl ai ne d th at “ [t]he gi rls -o nl y da nc e te am ru le is su bs ta nt ia ll y rel at ed to a n

im po rta nt go ve rn m en ta l ob

jecti ve ”—n am el y , “ in crea si ng gi rls ’ at hl et ic op po rtu ni ti es .”

Mo reo ve r, th e co ur t sa id th at Tit le IX p e r mi t s t h e Leag ue to crea te gi rls -o nl y at hl et ic

te am s s uc h a s d an ce t eam s. Th e b oys ti m el y fil ed a no ti ce o f ap pe al

.

-3

-II.

We r ev ie w “ th e de ni al of a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret i o n

. ”

Gres ha m v. Swa n s o n , 8 6 6 F.3 d 85 3, 85 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s

di sc ret io n whe n it “ res ts it s co nc lu si on on cl earl y erro ne ou s f a ct ua l fin di ng s or

erro ne ou s le ga l co nc lu si on s.” Jo ne s v. Kell ey , 85 4 F.3 d 10 09

, 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (p er

cu ria m ). “ W e wil l no t di st ur b a di st ric t cou rt’s di sc ret io na ry de ci si on if su ch de ci si on

rem ai ns wit hi n th e ran ge of ch oi ce av ai la bl e to th e di st ric t co ur t, acco un ts fo r al l

rel ev an t fact or s, do es no t rel y on an y irr el ev an t fact or s, and do es no t co ns ti tu te a cl ear

erro r of jud gm en t.” Ri ch la nd /Wil ki n Jo in t Po wers Aut h. v. U.S. Arm y Co rp s of Eng ’rs

, 82 6 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 35 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng PCTV Gol d, In c. v. Sp eed Net, LLC

, 50 8

F.3 d 11 37

, 11 42 (8 t h C i r

. 2 00 7) ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s de

no vo

. Barr et t v . Cla y co m b , 70 5 F .3d 31 5, 3 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

W he n de te rm in in g whe th er to is su e a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n, th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ers : “ (1 ) th e th reat of i r r e p a rab le ha rm to th e m ov an t; (2 ) th e st at e of ba la nc e

be twee n th is ha rm an d th e in jury th at gr an ti ng th e in

jun ct io n wil l in fli ct on ot he r pa rti es

li ti ga nt ; (3 ) th e pr ob ab il it y th at [th e] m ov an t wil l su ccee d on th e m e r i t s ; a n d (4 ) th e

pu bl ic in te res t.” Data ph as e S ys

. , I n c

. v

. C L Sy s., In c. , 64 0 F.2 d 10 9, 11 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 81 ) (en b a n c )

. Gen eral ly, no on e of th es e fact or s is de te rm in at iv e. Id

. at 11 3.

H o w e ve r, “ th e ab se nc e of a li ke li ho od of su cces s on th e m eri ts st ro ng ly s ug ge s t s t h a t

pr el im in ary in

jun ct iv e rel ie f sh ou ld be de ni ed .” Barr et t

, 70 5 F.3 d at 32 0 (q uo ti ng CDI

En e r g y S e r v s

. , In c. v. W es t Ri ve r Pu m ps , In c. , 56 7 F.3 d 39 8, 40 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )).

Co ns eq ue nt ly, we wil l b eg in ou r rev ie w wit h a n a na lysis of t ha t fa ct or

.

A.

The re are two st an da rd s a di st ric t co ur t m ay ap pl y w h e n as se ss in g a m ov an t’s

pr ob ab il it y of su cces s on th e m eri ts

. The fir st

, whi ch ap pl ie s in m os t in st an ces , di rect s

th e di st ric t co ur t to as k whe th er th e pa rty req ue st in g a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n ha s a “ fai r

ch an ce of pr ev ai li ng .” Pl an ne d Pare nt ho od Mi nn es ot a, Nor th Dak ot a, So ut h Dak ot a v.

Ro un ds

, 53 0 F.3 d 72 4, 73 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (en ba nc )

. Thi s fai r-ch an ce st an d a r d do es

-4

-no t req ui re th e pa rty se ek in g rel ie f to “ sh ow ‘a gr eat er th an fif ty pe r cen t li ke li ho od th at

he wil l pr ev ai l on th e m eri ts .’ ” Id

. at 73 1 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The se co nd

, whi ch we ha ve

cal le d a “ m or e rig or ou s st an da rd ,” cal ls on th e di st ric t co ur t to de te rm in e, as a th res ho ld

m at te r, whe th er the m ov an t is “ li ke ly to pre va il ” o n h is or h er cl ai m s. Id

. at 7 33

. The

li ke ly-to -p rev ai l st an da rd ap pl ie s whe n “ a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n is so ug ht to en

joi n th e

im pl em en ta ti on of a du ly enact ed st at e st at ut e.” Id

. at 73 2. The di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d

th e he ig ht en ed

, li ke ly-to -p rev ai l sta nd ard be cau se “ th e ch al le ng ed po li cy is su pp or te d
by a Min ne so ta st at ut e.” The pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er t ha t was erro r.

As no te d ab ov e, th e te st fo r de te rm in in g whi ch st an da rd ap p li es is whe th er th e

“ pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n is so ug ht to en

joi n t he im

pl em en ta ti on of a du ly en act ed st at e

st at ut e.” Id

. W e ap pl y a he ig ht en ed st an da rd in su ch in st an ces be cau se th e du ly en act ed

st at e st at ut e co ns ti tu te s “ go ve rn men t act io n ba se d on pr es um pt iv el y reas on ed

de m oc rat ic pr oc es se s,” an d su ch act io n is “ en ti tl ed to a hi gh er de gr ee of de fere nc e an d

sh ou ld no t be en

joi ne d li gh tl y .” Id

. at 73 2 (q uo ti ng Abl e v. Uni te d St at es , 44 F.3 d 12 8,

13 1 (2 d Ci r. 19 95 )). The li ke ly-to -p rev ai l te st m ay al so be ap pr op ria te whe n a m ov an t

se ek s to pr el im in ari ly en

joi n ot he r fo rm s of go ve rn m en t act io n su ch as “ ad m in is tra ti ve

act io ns by fed eral

, st at e or lo cal go ve rn m en t ag en ci es .” Id

. at 73 2 n.6

. Howev er, in

th os e cas es , th e su gg es te d co ur se of act io n is to fir st “ ev al ua te whe th er ‘the fu ll pl ay of

th e de m oc rat ic pr o c e s s [ ]’ w as in vo lv ed ” in th e act io ns an d “ th en de te rm in e whi ch

st an da rd wou ld be m or e ap pr op r i a t e

. ” Ri ch la nd /Wil ki n , 82 6 F.3 d at 10 40 (q uo ti ng

Ro un ds , 53 0 F .3d at 7 32 n.6 ).

He r e , By la w 41 2 can , un de r Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t, rig ht ly be co ns id ered

go ve rn m en t act io n. See Bren de n v. In de p. Sch

. Dis t. 74 2

, 47 7 F.2 d 12 92

, 12 95 (8 th Ci r.

1 9 7 3 ) ( d et erm in in g th at th e Leag ue “ act [ed ] un de r co lo r of st at e la w” fo r pu rp os es o f

42 U.S.C. § 19 83 in pr om ul ga ti ng ru le s go ve rn in g hi gh sc ho ol at hl et ic s)

. Howev er, th e by la w was no t ba se d on th e “ pr es um pt iv el y reas on ed de m oc rat ic pr oc es se s” tha t Ro und s

co nt em pl at ed

. Ro un ds

, 53 0 F.3 d at 73 2. In de ed

, th e c r eat io n of th e bylaw di d no t

in vo lv e “ th e fu ll pl ay of th e de m oc rat ic pr oc es s.” I d

. a t 7 32 n.6 ; se e al so

-5

-Ri ch la nd /Wil ki n , 82 6 F.3 d at 10 40

. The re was no le ng th y pu bl ic de ba te in vo lv in g bo th

th e le gi sl at iv e an d ex ecu t i v e b ran ch es be fo re th e fo rm ul at io n of th e bylaw an d it s

su bs eq ue nt en act m en t. Cf. Abl e , 44 F.3 d at 13 1– 32 (impos in g a he ig ht en ed li ke li ho od

of -s uc ces s st an da rd up on a m ot io n to en joi n fed eral le gi sl at io n an d reg ul at io n be cau se

“ Co ng res s an d th e Pres id en t [h ad ] en ga ge d in le ng th y pu bl ic de ba te be fo re fo rm ul at in g”

th em ). 1 And th e bylaws are crea te d by Leag ue -m em be r sc ho ol s th ro ug ho ut th e st at e, no t
by de m oc rat ic al ly el ect ed of fic ia ls who m

us t an swe r to th ei r co ns ti tu en ts or face th e

po ss ib il it y

of n ot be in g re el ect ed

.

To t he ex te nt th e Leag ue arg ue s th at th e he ig ht en ed st an da rd ap pl ie s b ecau se it

is im pl em en ti ng a st at e st at ut e, Mi nn es ot a S ta tu te se ct io n 12 1A.0 4, we reject th e

arg um en t. Sect io n 12 1A.0 4 do es no t di rect th e Leag ue to do an y th in g; rat he r, th e st at ut e

pe rm it s th e Leag ue to di sc riminat e on th e ba si s of se x in li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces —wh en

at hl et ic op po rtu ni ti es fo r a se x ha ve pr ev io us ly be en li m it ed

. The Leag u e m us t st il l

sh ow th e co nt in ui ng la ck of op po rtu ni ty an d ho w th e ch al le ng ed po li cy ad dr es se s th at

in eq ui ty. Not hi ng in th is act io n cal ls in to qu es ti on th e va li di ty of th e un de rlyin g st at ut e.

Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e he ig h t e n e d, li ke ly-to -p rev ai l st an da rd do es no t ap pl y to th e

bo y s’ pr el i mi n a r y in

jun ct io n m ot io n. W e as k, in st ead

, whe th er th e bo y s ha ve a fai r

ch an ce o f pr ev ai li ng

.

B.

W e no w tu rn to th e m eri ts of th e bo y s’ cl ai m s, ap pl y in g th e ap pr op ria te st an da rd

. The bo y s arg ue th at th e Leag ue vi ol at ed th ei r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t eq ua l pr ot ect io n rig ht s whe n it ba nn ed th em fro m pa rti ci pa ti ng on th ei r hi gh sc ho ol s’ co m pe ti ti ve da nc e

te am s be cau se th ey are m al e. The Leag ue co nt en ds th at it is jus ti fie d in pr ecl ud in g th e

1 Abl e se rv ed as an im

po r t a n t g u i d e fo r us whe n we ad op te d ou r he ig ht en ed

, li ke ly-to -p rev ai l te st in Ro un ds

. See Ro un ds

, 53 0 F.3 d at 73 1– 33 ; se e al so id

. at 73 2 n.6

. Abl e ’s tre at m en t of whe n go ve rn m en t act io n rep res en ts “ th e fu ll pl ay of th e de m oc rat ic

pr oc es se s” is , th eref

or e, si gn ifi can t.

-6

-bo y s fro m th e da nc e te am s be cau se do in g so co ns ti tu te s m ean s th at are “ su b s t a n t i a l ly

rel at ed to th e im

po rta nt go ve rn m en ta l in te res t of red res si ng pa st di sc rimina t i o n an d

pr ov id in g e qu al op po rtu ni ti es for wom en .”

On th e is su e of pa st di sc riminat io n, th e pa rti es ha ve su bm it te d a ch art th at sh ows , fo r Mi nn es ot a in a gi ve n y ear, th e rel at iv e pe rcen ta ge s of bo y s a n d gi rls en ro ll ed in

Leag ue -m em

be r sc ho ol s st at ewid e. It th en sh ows th e rel at iv e pe rcen ta ge s of bo y s an d
gi rls am on g th os e st ud en ts pa rti ci pa ti ng in in te rs ch ol as ti c sp or ts

. The un de rrep res en te d

se x c ol um

n s ho ws t he di ffer en ce be twee n th e pe rcen ta ge of st ud en ts en ro ll ed an d th e

pe rcen ta ge of st ud en ts pa rti ci pa ti ng in in te rs ch ol as ti c sp or ts fo r whi ch ev er ge nd er is

un de rrep res en te d t ha t year. The ch art is rep ro du ced he re as fol lo ws:

Lea gu e-Member Sc ho ol Enro ll m ents an d Athl etes by Gend er

Yea r Lea gu e

Members

Enro ll m ent

Bo ys Lea gu e

Members

Enro ll m ent
Gi rl s Lea gu e

Athl etes

Bo ys Lea gu e

Athl etes
Gi rl s Under

repr es ente d

Sex

20 13 –1 4 13 3,9 64

(5 1.3 %) 12 7,3 64

(4 8.7 %) 11 9,0 34

(5 3.2 %) 10 4,7 06

(4 6.8 %) Girl s

(-1 .9%)

20 14 –1 5 13 4,8 79

(5 1.3 %) 12 8,1 28

(4 8.7 %) 11 8,8 99

(5 2.4 %) 10 8,0 84

(4 7.6 %) Girl s

(-1 .1%)

20 15 –1 6 13 6,2 57

(5 1.3 %) 12 9,3 94

(4 8.7 %) 12 1,0 24

(5 2.4 %) 11 0,0 23

(4 7.6 %) Girl s

(-1 .1%)

20 16 –1 7 13 7,6 03

(5 1.4 %) 13 0,2 63

(4 8.6 %) 12 2,2 69

(5 1.1 %) 11 7,0 20

(4 8.9 %) Bo y s

(-0 .3%)

Ave rag e 13 5,6 76

(5 1.3 %) 12 8,7 87

(4 8.7 %) 12 0,3 07

(5 2.2 %) 10 9,9 58

(4 7.8 %) Girl s

(-1 .0%)

The same dat a fo r 20 17 –1 8 s ho ws b oys were u nd erre pr es en te d b y 0.3 5%.

-7

-The Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t pr ov id es th at “ [n ]o St at e sh al l

. . . de ny to an y pe rs on

wit hi n it s juris di ct io n th e eq ua l pro te ct io n of the la ws.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. XIV, § 1.

In th e co nt ex t of ge nd er-b as ed di sc riminat io n, th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in te rp ret ed

th at cl au se to m ean th at un le ss a go ve rn m en t act or can m eet th e “ de m an di ng ” bu rd en

of sh owi ng an “ ex ceed in gl y pe rs ua si ve ” jus ti fic at io n fo r tre at in g m al es di ffer en tl y fro m

fem al es , th e di ffer en ti al tre at m en t is un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Uni te d St at es v. Virg in ia

, 51 8

U.S. 51 5, 53 3 (1 99 6) ; se e al so Duc k w o r th v. St

. Lou is Met ro

. Po li ce Dep ’t

, 49 1 F.3 d

40 1, 4 06 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) . To su cces sf ul ly j us ti fy

a cl as si fic at io n ba se d on ge nd er, t he

act or “ m us t sh ow ‘at le as t th at th e [ch al le ng ed ] cl as si fic at io n se rv es “ im po rta nt

go ve rn m en ta l ob

jecti ve s an d th at th e dis cr im ina tor y m ea ns em plo y ed ” are “ su bs ta nt ia ll y

rel at ed to th e ach ie ve m en t of th os e ob jecti ve s.”’” Virg in ia

, 51 8 U.S. at 53 3 (al te rat io n

in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g Mi ss . Uni v. fo r W om en v. Ho ga n , 45 8 U.S. 7 18 , 72 4 (1 98 2) ).

The Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d th at “ ge nd er-b as e d c l a s s ifi cat io n[ s] f av or in g on e se x”

th at are de si gn ed to rem ed y pa st di sc riminat io n can be ju st ifi ed “ [i]n li m it ed

ci rcu m s t a n c e s

. ” Mi ss

. Uni v. , 45 8 U.S. at 72 8. Su ch ci rcu m st an ces ex is t whe n th e

cl as si fic at io n “ in te nt io na ll y an d di rect ly as si st s m em be rs o f th e se x th at is

di sp ro po rti on at el y bu rd en ed .” Id

. Howev er, a go ve r n men t a c t or m ay “ ev ok e a

co m pe ns at or y pu rp os e to jus ti fy an ot he rwis e di sc riminat or y cl a s s i f i c at io n on ly if

m em be rs of th e ge nd er be ne fit ed by th e cl as si fic at io n ac tu al ly su ff er a di sa dv an ta ge

rel at ed to th e cl as si fic at io n.” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. In o th er wo rd s, fo r a g ov ern m en t

act or to cl as si fy in di vi du al s ba se d on ge nd er fo r th e pu rp os e of rem ed y in g a pr io r la ck

of op po rtu ni ti es , th e in di vi du al s m us t co nt in ue to la ck op po rtu ni ti es or th e cl as si fic at io n

is no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly jus ti fie d. See id

. at 72 9 (d ecl ari ng a pu bl ic un iv ers it y ’s wom en

on ly po li cy to be un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se th e un iv ers it y ha d “ m ad e no sh owi ng

. . . th at

w o m en [were ] cu rren tl y

. . . de pr iv ed of ” op po rtu ni ti es to ob ta in nu rs in g tra in in g o r

p o s i ti on s of le ad ers hi p) ; id

. at 73 0 (“ [A]lth ou gh th e St at e reci te d a ‘ben ig n,

co m pe ns at or y pu rp o s e , ’ i t f

ai le d to es ta bl is h th at th e al le ge d ob jecti ve is th e act ua l

pu rp os e u nd erl y in g t he di sc riminat or y cla ss ifi cat io n.” ).

-8

-The pa rti es ag ree th at gi rls hi st or ic al ly ha ve be en un de rrep res en te d in Mi nn es ot a

hi gh sch oo l at hl et ic s. Ho wev er, o ve r th e pa st fiv e y ears , t he rep res en ta ti on of g irl s i n

Mi nn es ot a at hl et ic s ha s be en al m os t di rect ly pr op or ti on al to th e nu m be r of gi rls en ro ll ed

at Mi nn es ot a sc ho ol s. In fact

, in bo th th e 20 16 –1 7 an d 20 17

– 1 8 s c h o o l y ears , th e

pa rti es ’ m ean s of de te rm in in g rep res en ta ti on sh ow th at bo y s h a v e b een sl ig ht ly

un de rrep res en te d in hi gh sc ho o l a t h l e ti cs

. Thu s, th e Leag ue ha s no t sh own th at th e

un de rlyin g pr ob le m it in it ia ll y so ug ht to rem ed y by crea ti ng al l-g irl te am s— th e ov eral l

un de rrep res en ta ti on of gi rls in hi gh sc ho ol at hl et ic s— co nt in ue s to e x i s t

, at le as t in

Mi nn es ot a. 2 W it ho ut th is un de rlyin g pr ob le m to rem ed y , th e Leag ue can no t p r o h i b i t

bo y s fro m pa rti c i pa ti ng on gi rls ’ te am s un le ss it ha s so m e ot he r “ ex ceed in gl y

pe rs ua si ve ” jus ti fic at io n fo r do in g s o. Virg in ia , 51 8 U.S. at 53 3.

The Leag ue do es no t o f

f e r a n y su ch jus ti fic at io n. In st ead

, it m erel y arg ue s, in

br oa d te rm s, th at res tri ct in g th e m em be rs hi p of at hl et ic te am s to on e se x “ ad va nc es th e

im po rta nt go ve rn m en t in te res t of pr om ot in g sa fet y , in crea si ng co m pe ti ti on , red res si ng

pa st di sc riminat io n, an d pr ov id in g m or e at hl et ic op po rtu ni ti es fo r fem al e at hl et es .” The

Leag ue al so ci te s a Rh od e Is la nd Su pr e m e Co ur t cas e, Klec zek v. R.I. In te rs ch ol as ti c

2 The U.S. Dep art m en t of Edu cat io n’s Offi ce of Ci vi l Ri gh ts

, th e Leag ue , an d th e NFHS al l rep e a t e d ly st res s th at gi rls are un de rrep res en te d in hi gh sc ho ol at hl et ic s

na ti on wid e. To s up po rt t he ir c la im s, t he y po in t t o d at a th at sh ow “ [o ]ver th e las t fo ur

y ears 1,2 18 ,12 5 (1 5.6 %) m or e bo y s pa rti ci pa te d na ti on wid e in in te rs ch ol as ti c sp or ts

, on

av erag e, th an gi rls .” The p ro bl em wit h t he da ta th ey

cit e, ho wev er, i s t ha t t he da ta do

no t sh ow th e to ta l, na ti on wid e nu m be r of st ud en ts en ro ll ed in sc ho ol s th at of fer

in te rs ch ol as ti c at hl et ic pr og ram s. Nor do th e da ta br eak d o w n h o w m an y of th os e

st ud en ts are bo y s an d ho w m an y are gi rls

. W it ho ut th at in fo rm at io n, it is im po ss ib le to

ap pr eci at e th e ex te nt to whi ch ei th er ge nd er is ov er- or u n d e r r e p res en te d in

in te rs ch ol as ti c at hl et ic s at th e na ti on al le ve l. The re m ay be m or e bo y s th an gi rls

pa rti ci pa ti ng in in te rs ch ol as ti c sp or ts be cau se th ere are si m pl y m or e bo y s th an gi rls

en ro ll ed

. Mo reo ve r, th e al le ge d fact th at gi rls are un de rrep res en te d in sp or ts na ti on wid e do es no t ad dr es s th e qu es ti on of whe th er gi rls are un de rrep res en te d in Mi nn es ot a so as

to jus ti fy a bylaw th at pr oh ib it s bo y s fro m joi ni ng hi gh sc ho ol co m pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s in th at st at e.

-9

-Leag ue , In c. , 61 2 A.2d 73 4 (R.I. 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e r cu ria m ), in whi ch th e co ur t he ld th at

pr om ot in g sa fet y an d pr es erv in g in te rs ch ol as ti c at hl et ic co m pe ti ti on fo r bo y s an d gi rls

are im po rta nt go ve rn m en t in te res ts

. Id

. at 73 9. Klec zek

, ho wev er, in ad di ti on to be in g

no n- bi nd in g, is di st in gu i s h a b l e f r om th is cas e. Klec zek in vo lv ed a ba n on bo y s

pa rti ci pa ti ng on gi rls -o nl y fie ld ho ck ey

tea m s. Id

. at 7 35

. The c ou rt, u nd ers ta nd ab ly,

ha d c on cern s ab ou t p art ic ip an ts ’ sa fet y if bo y s were al lo wed on th e te am s. Id

. at 7 39

. Here, th e Lea g u e d o e s n ot ex pl ai n ho w al lo win g bo y s to da nc e on th ei r sc ho ol s’

co m pe ti ti ve da nc e 3 te am s wou ld be un sa fe or ho w it wou ld de pr iv e gi rls of op po rtu ni ti es

to co m pe te

. Mo reo ve r, Klec zek was de ci de d un de r th e Rh od e Is la nd co ns ti tu ti on , no t

th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on

. Id

. at 73 6. W e fin d th e Leag ue ’s as se rte d ot he r jus ti fic at io ns fo r

p r o h ib it in g bo y s fro m pa rti ci pa ti ng on hi gh sc ho ol co m pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s

un pe rs ua si ve

.

Bec au se th e Leag ue ha s no t as se rte d an “ ex ceed in gl y pe rs ua si ve ” jus ti fic at io n fo r

ke ep in g bo y s fro m pa rti ci pa ti ng on hi gh sc ho ol co m pe ti ti ve da nc e te am s, we ho ld th at

t h e b oys ha d m or e th an a fai r ch an ce of pr ev ai li ng on th e m eri ts of th ei r c a s e

. 4 Th e

di st ric t co ur t er red in co nc lu di ng ot he rwis e.

C.

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e bo y s ha ve a fai r ch an ce of pr ev ai li ng on th e m eri ts

of th ei r eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m , we ne ed no t ad dr es s th ei r pr ob ab il it y of su cces s on th ei r

Tit le IX cl ai m

. See Ri ch la nd /Wil ki n , 82 6 F.3 d at 10 40 (“ The p l a i nt iff ‘need on ly

3 In m an y sp or ts

, si ng le -s ex te a ms c a n be jus ti fie d if bo y s en joy a co m

pe ti ti ve ad va nt ag e ov er gi rls du e to th ei r weig ht an d he ig ht

. The Leag ue ha s no t pr es en te d an y

e v id en ce (an d do es no t se em to se rio us ly arg ue ) th at bo y s en joy an y co m

pe ti t i v e ad va nt ag e o ve r gi rls in da nc e.

4 Giv en th e la ck of jus ti fic at io n fo r th e po li cy , we ha v e n o do ub t th at th e bo y s

co ul d e ve n s at is fy

th e h ei gh te ne d, l ik el y -to -p rev ai l s ta nd ard if i t wer e ap pl ic ab le

.

-1 0-es ta bl is h a li ke li ho od of su ccee di ng on th e m eri ts of an y on e of [it s] cl ai m s.’” (al te rat io n

in ori gi na l) ( ci ta ti on om it te d) ). W e tu rn no w to th e o th er Data ph as e fact or s.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e bo y s “ su ffi ci en tl y de m on st rat ed irr ep arab le

ha rm .” W e ag ree. St ud en ts who are de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to joi n th ei r sc ho ol s’ sp or ts

te am s be cau se of th ei r s e x m ay su ffer irr ep arab le ha rm

. See Bed na r v. Neb

. Sch

. Acti vi ti es Ass ’n

, 53 1 F.2 d 92 2, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ) (p er cu ria m ). Tha t is es pe ci al ly tru e

he re. Bo th bo y s are jun io rs in hi gh sc ho ol

. The y lo ve to da nc e an d w a n t t o do so

c o mp et it iv el y as pa rt of a sc ho ol te am

. The Leag ue ’s ba n ha s pr oh ib it ed th e m f r o m

do in g so th is y ear. The y can no t ge t th at se as on ba ck

. W it ho ut in jun ct iv e rel ie f or fin al

res ol ut io n of th ei r su it

, th ey wil l be pr ev en te d fro m co m pe ti ng ne xt y ear as well

. The se

so rts of in juri es , i.e., de pr iv at io ns of te m po ral ly is ol at ed op po rtu ni ti es , are ex act ly wha t

pr el im in ary in

jun ct io ns are i nt en de d t o re li ev e.

Fu rth erm or e, we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at th e pu bl ic

in te res t fav or ed de nyin g th e in jun ct io n. The di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th at “ [t]he pu bl ic

in te res t is ev id en ced in th e Mi nn es ot a s t a t u t e al lo win g gi rls -o nl y te am s th at do no t

v i o la te Tit le IX or th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se .” Tha t st at em en t, whi le tru e e n o u g h

,

ov erl oo ks th e fai r pr ob ab il it y th at th e Leag ue ’s bylaw vi ol at es th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. “ [T]he

pu bl ic is se rv ed by t he pr es erv at io n of c on st it ut io na l ri gh ts .” Ph el ps -Ro pe r v. Nix on , 54 5 F.3 d 68 5, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Ph el ps -Ro pe r v. Ci ty

of Man ch es te r , 6 97 F.3 d 67 8, 69 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (en b a n c ) ; s e e al so Awad v. Ziri ax , 67 0 F.3 d 11 11 , 1 13 2 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [I]t is al way s i n t h e p u b l ic in te res t to pr ev en t

th e v io la ti on of a pa rty’ s con st it ut io na l rig ht s.” (qu ot in g G & V Lou ng e, In c. v. M ic h.
Liq uo r C o n t r o l C o mm ’ n , 23 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 79 (6 th Ci r. 19 94 ))). As su ch

, th e pu bl ic

in te res t Data ph as e fact or fav or s t he bo y s.

Fi na ll y , we ho ld th at th e ba la nc e of ha rm s ti ps in fav or of gr an ti ng an in jun ct io n.

The di st ric t co ur t al lu de d th at su ch m ay be th e cas e in it s m em or an du m an d or de r, an d

fo r go od reas on

. If th e in jun c t i on is gr an te d, th e bo y s m ay try ou t fo r th ei r sc ho ol s’

-1 1-co m

p e t i t i v e da nc e te am s. The ne ga ti ve pu bl ic co ns eq ue nc es of su ch an al lo wan ce, if

an y , wil l b e sl ig ht

. 5 See W in te r v. Nat . Res

. Def. Co un ci l, In c. , 5 55 U.S. 7

, 24 (20 08 )
(“ In ex erci si ng th ei r so un d di sc ret io n, co ur ts of eq ui ty sh ou ld pa y pa rti cu la r reg ard fo r

th e pu bl ic co ns eq ue nc es in em pl oyin g th e e xtr ao rd in ary rem ed y of in jun ct io n.” (q uo ti ng

W ei nb erg er v. Ro m ero –B arce lo

, 45 6 U.S. 30 5, 31 2 (1 98 2) )). On th e ot he r ha nd

, if th e

in jun ct io n is de ni ed

, th e bo y s wil l co nt in ue to su ffer irr ep arab le ha rm —n am el y , th ey

wil l be pr ev en te d fro m tryin g ou t fo r an d pa rti ci pa ti ng on th ei r s c ho ol s’ co m pe ti ti ve

da nc e te am s i n pr ob ab le vi ol at io n of the ir con st it ut io na l rig ht s. The b al an ce o f ha rm s

is de ci de dl y

in th e b oys’ favo r.

III.

In su m , al l of th e Data ph as e fact or s fav or gr an ti ng D.M.’s an d Z.G.’ s m ot io n fo r

a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n. W e th e r e f

o r e r ev ers e th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t an d

rem an d fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t t o i ss ue a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n i n fa vo r of

th e b oys.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

5 The Leag ue arg ue s th at “ [g ]rant in g an in jun ct io n wou ld fu nd am en ta ll y al te r th e

req ui rem en ts fo r MSHSL-s po ns or ed act iv it ie s an d wou ld di sr eg ard t h e u na m bi gu ou s la ng ua ge of Mi nn

. St at

. § 12 1A.0 4.” The Leag ue wor rie s th at were th e pr el im in ary in jun ct io n to be gr an te d an d th e bo y s “ su bs eq ue nt ly d et erm in ed in el ig ib le aft er a t ria l

on th e m eri ts ,” th ei r te am s wou ld be req ui red to fo rfei t “ al l co nt es ts in whi ch [th e bo y s]

pa rti ci pa te d.” W e do no t sh are t he Leag ue ’s con cern s. If th e in jun ct io n i s g ran te d, t he

bo y s are “ el ig ib le ” fo r al l in te nt s an d pu rp os es

. T h eref or e, we are no t co nv in ced th at
th ei r te am s wou ld ha ve to fo rfei t co nt es ts u n d e r t h e Leag ue ’s ru le s. Mo reo ve r, th e Le a gu e’s in ab il it y to sh ow an “ ex ceed in gl y pe rs ua si ve ” jus ti fic at io n fo r i t s di sc riminat or y ru le at th is st ag e of th e li ti ga ti on m ak es a sc en ari o whe rei n th e bo y s lo se

at tri al hi gh ly unl ik el y

.

-1 2-