New Title IX investigation opened in Minnesota after trans pitcher wins girls' softball championship
HHS announced the investigation on Thursday, directly citing the controversial softball situation.
"The male athlete's participation was instrumental, leading the team to win the state title," the announcement read.
HHS's Office of Civil Rights Paula M. Stannard insisted that the state must follow federal law, and not its current state laws that permit trans inclusion in girls' sports.
"Females cannot be relegated to the sidelines under Title IX," Stannard said in the announcement. "As a recipient of Federal funds, Title IX requires Minnesota to ensure fair and safe opportunities for females to compete on sex-segregated teams – regardless of state law obligations."
The state is already under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education for its state laws that allow biological males in girls' sports and defy President Donald Trump's "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" executive order. That investigation was elevated to the federal Title IX investigation team, which operates in conjunction with the Department of Justice, on June 12.
The state is also engaged in a pair of lawsuits over the issue, one filed by state Attorney General Keith Ellison against the Trump administration, and another filed by three anonymous girls softball players against Ellison and the state over having to compete with a trans athlete.
The state also failed to pass a bill that would have barred biological males from girls' and women's sports in early March after Democrats in the state's legislature voted against it.
This allowed the trans pitcher, junior Marissa Rothenberger, to have a dominant playoff run for Champlin Park. Rothenberger threw a complete-game shutout, allowing just three hits and striking out six in the championship game Friday, capping off a run that saw Rothenberger pitch all 21 innings across three state tournament games, giving up just two runs.
The organization representing the plaintiffs suing the state over its policies, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), previously provided a statement from one of the female players about her experience facing the trans athlete.
"Hitting against him is not only a physical challenge but a mental, too. It's a mental battle knowing that he has an advantage in the sport that I grew up playing, making it hard to even want to hit against him. His ability to get outs and spin the ball is a strong advantage, but like I said, it's also incredibly mentally challenging knowing that you're competing against someone who has unfair advantages leaving you with little to no confidence," the player said.
"This issue has affected me in ways that I never imagined. It's simply unfair, and I hate that nothing is happening to change that. Boys should not be able to take girls' spots on teams just because they are capable of doing so. I hope that more girls affected by this issue will stand up against this."
The anonymous player also called out Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison for aggressively defending trans inclusion in girls' sports in the state. Ellison has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice over Trump's "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" executive order.
"It's really upsetting to know that [Ellison] isn't taking rights of girls and women seriously. He is allowing boys to compete with girls, and it is not safe and completely unfair. To know that AG Ellison is in complete support of letting boys and men take advantage of females in sports is absolutely disgusting and wrong," the player added.
Champlin Park's school district provided a statement to Fox News Digital defending the decision to allow the athlete to compete on the softball team.
"Throughout the entire season, and as the Rebels advance to the state tournament, it is important to note that all of the student athletes participating for the Champlin Park Softball team are eligible to compete in compliance with Minnesota State High School League rules and applicable state law. Due to data privacy laws, the District is not able to provide public comment regarding a specific student athlete," a statement from the Anoka-Hennepin School District stated.
"In addition, the District is named in an active lawsuit which limits what information can be shared."
Ellison's office previously released a statement responding to the lawsuit against the state over Rothenberger's participation in the girls' softball season.
"In addition to getting exercise and the fun of competition, playing sports comes with so many benefits for young people. You build friendships that can last a lifetime, you learn how to work as part of a team, and you get to feel like you belong," Ellison said.
"I believe it is wrong to single out one group of students, who already face higher levels of bullying and harassment, and tell these kids they cannot be on the team because of who they are. I will continue to defend the rights of all students to play sports with their friends and peers."
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California voters support EV tax incentives, but are wary of sales mandates says poll
California drivers don't want to lose their electric vehicle tax incentives, but even voters in one of the bluest states are wary about reviving plans to phase out gas cars. Voters are split down the middle on whether California should stick to its guns on its Trump-blocked plans to phase out sales of gas cars by 2035, according to an exclusive POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll. Only 46 percent of the more than 1,400 registered voters surveyed said they support the policy, while 47 percent said no. Yes, there was an obvious partisan split: 60 percent of Democrats said they backed the phase-out, compared with 40 percent of independents and 31 percent of Republicans. But the results offer a note of caution for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who directed the California Air Resources Board to start writing new vehicle emissions rules after Republicans revoked the state's sales mandates for cars and heavy-duty trucks in June. 'None of us really like the idea of government intervening to take something away from us,' said Dan Sperling, a former California Air Resources Board member and director of the University of California, Davis' Institute for Transportation Studies. 'That's even the most liberal of us.' Poll respondents are more bought into Newsom's plan to backfill the soon-to-be-defunct $7,500 federal EV tax credit. Nearly two-thirds — 64 percent — said they would support state-funded tax incentives once the federal subsidy ends Sept. 30, as part of the Trump administration's ongoing attacks on clean energy policy. That question again showed a partisan divide, with 80 percent of Democrats saying they back the approach, compared with 60 percent of independent voters and just 43 percent of Republicans. But the overall result bolsters Newsom's push to backfill incentives that the Biden administration used to coax drivers off fossil fuels, as he suggested using cap-and-trade revenues last year and directed state agencies to consider in a June executive order. But Jack Citrin, a veteran political science professor at UC Berkeley and partner on the poll, said a closer look at the poll results shows that Democrats need to keep affordability in mind. He pointed to the fact that 28 percent of respondents said they'd support new EV incentives only if gas prices aren't impacted and another 20 percent said they should be reserved for low-income buyers, reflecting the fact that cost of living was the top concern of voters polled. And 64 percent of respondents said gasoline prices are putting a significant, extreme or moderate burden on their household budgets. 'That reflects a concern with the cost of all of this,' Citrin said. 'Yes, we're for environmental protection. Yes, we're for all of this, just as long as it doesn't cost a lot.' The poll comes as state agencies released a joint report Tuesday with recommendations for countering Trump's assault, calling on lawmakers to bolster tax incentives, improve charging infrastructure and regulate facilities that attract polluting trucks, but offering few specific timelines or dollar figures. CARB Chair Liane Randolph framed the report — which Newsom asked for in his June order — as a first step in the state's defense against a hostile federal government. 'Clean air efforts are under siege, putting the health of every American at risk,' she said during a press briefing. 'California is continuing to fight back and will not give up on cleaner air and better public health.' Sperling called the report a surprisingly 'modest document,' and said it lacks the specificity he hoped to see. 'The word I would use is disconcerting,' Sperling said when asked about where California stands in its fight against Trump. The POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll was fielded by TrueDot, the artificial intelligence-accelerated research platform, in collaboration with the Citrin Center and Possibility Lab at UC Berkeley and POLITICO. The public opinion study, made possible in part with support from the California Constitution Center, was conducted in the field between July 28 and Aug. 12. The sample of 1,445 registered voters was selected at random by Verasight, with interviews conducted in English and Spanish, and includes an oversample of Hispanic voters. The modeled error estimate for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6 percent. The policy influencer study was conducted from July 30 to Aug. 11, among 512 subscribers to POLITICO Pro, and the modeled error estimate is plus or minus 3.7 percent. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 2025 Political Beat Primary Candidate Guide
Charlotte residents will head to the polls to decide who should advance to the November general election for Charlotte City Council. In-person early voting starts August 21. The primary is on September 9th. Channel 9 sent key questions to all candidates. Their responses are posted unedited. ALSO READ: Where you can vote early in Charlotte for the primary election Whoever wins the primaries in Districts 1, 4, and 5 will serve on the next Charlotte City Council. There is no opposition for these seats in November. Democrats and unaffiliated voters can vote in all districts. Republicans can only vote in the District 6 primary. This is the only contested Republican race in September. Unaffiliated voters can choose the Republican ballot in District 6. See the candidates' responses in each race below: The Political Beat Candidate Guide: City of Charlotte Mayor The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council At-Large The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council- District 1 The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 3 The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 4 The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 5 The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 6 Use the map below to easily find your city council district and a link to our guide for the district. (WATCH BELOW: Charlotte City Council approves conversion of motel to studio apartments)
