Obama-appointed judge throws out girls' lawsuit over having to compete against trans athlete
Quakertown Community High School girls' cross-country and track runner Aislin Magalengo sued the school and the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) earlier this year. The lawsuit alleges Magalengo was made to compete against a trans student at Plymouth Whitemarsh High School at a cross-country meet in September 2024.
Allen won first place at the meet, while Magalengo came in second. The lawsuit claims Magalengo continued to compete against Allen throughout the season.
U.S. District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone dismissed the suit on Aug. 1. Beetlestone was appointed by former president Barack Obama in November 2014.
"Her Amended Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that she was subject to purposeful discrimination, other than asserting as much in the most conclusory fashion," wrote Judge Wendy Beetlestone in her decision. "She points to no instances of students assigned female at birth being treated differently than those assigned male at birth, and, as such, she has failed to plausibly state a claim for sex-based discrimination."
The plaintiffs' attorney, Keith Altman, said they will appeal the decision.
"The client's disappointed, obviously, and still believes strongly in what's happened," Altman said, per NBC Philadelphia. "We're going to continue pursuing the issue. We think it's an extremely important issue, and it's got to be resolved.
"It is irrefutable that males, as a general proposition, are more physically capable than females. We think that it is fundamentally unfair that somebody that simply says, 'Well, I identify as a female' is now able to compete with females and dominate women's athletics. It just doesn't make sense."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Grants Pass to provide 150 camping spaces, $60k in services after disability rights suit
The city of Grants Pass, which gained national attention for its practice of punishing homeless people for camping outside, has agreed to provide at least 150 spaces for individuals to do so. (Ben Botkin/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A southern Oregon city that gained national attention for its practice of punishing homeless people for camping outside has agreed to provide at least 150 spaces for individuals to do so after a lawsuit alleged its practices discriminated against disabled individuals. The city of Grants Pass won a major U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2024, reversing an earlier appeals court ruling that a city ordinance barring homeless people from using blankets, pillows or cardboard while sleeping outside violated the U.S. Constitution's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. That Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for more stringent restrictions on homeless individuals in the West, but in Oregon, a state law only allows cities to regulate sleeping outside if those regulations are 'objectively reasonable' to time, place and manner. Grants Pass responded by passing ordinances that allow people to stay in designated areas only between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. and to remove tents or other supplies each morning or face a $75 citation. Disability rights advocates and five homeless individuals sued, and the city reached a settlement this month. The settlement says the city will offer at least 150 units of camping spaces for homeless individuals. The city must also provide drinking water at any approved camping sites, and the property must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next year. 'Oregon can't arrest its way out of homelessness, and we are pleased the city has committed to developing more humane and legally compliant approaches to this public health crisis,' said Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of the Portland-based Disability Rights Oregon, in a statement. 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water and real opportunity to stabilize their lives.' The city had limited homeless people to stay and sleep in just one site with about 30 tents at any given time, prompting concerns about overcrowding and a lack of drinking water. In January, local officials closed another site with space for about 120 tents. Disability Rights Oregon and the Oregon Law Center cited Oregon's anti-discrimination law for disabled individuals in their January lawsuit. They won a two-week temporary restraining order in February prohibiting the city from enforcing penalties and restricting camping to the city's one site for tents. Since then, Circuit Court Judge Sarah E. McGlaughlin has ordered the city to halt enforcement of its ordinances against homeless encampments until the city restored capacity for 150 tents, exempting several parks from her mandate. The city and plaintiffs have agreed that the additional capacity for campaign will be on property owned by the city or operated by a third-party city contractor, according to the settlement. The city will also install shade at drinking facilities and award a $60,000 grant to a local nonprofit to provide services for homeless residents. The facility receiving the money must have bathrooms. The lawsuit launched by disability rights advocates was driven by stories of homeless people with chronic pain and health conditions being forced to constantly move their belongings and lives every day in the city. One such case involves 57-year-old Janine Harris, who suffers from arthritis, vertigo and chronic headaches. She previously told the Capital Chronicle that her health problems made her give up a job as a caregiver and she has been homeless for four years. She has to collect her belongings in a wagon she carries around. 'Being homeless is really hard on a person's body, especially if you have physical disabilities,'Harris wrote in a court declaration. 'I just want everyone to know that a lot of people who are living outside are people, just like them, who are doing their best to get by.' In a statement following the settlement, Allison Nasson, a staff attorney at the Oregon Law Center, cautioned against policies mandating homeless residents continuously relocate. 'Requiring people to 'move along' everyday doesn't get people into housing, it just makes life harder and more dangerous,' she wrote. 'When you have been forced to live outside, you still need water, a bathroom, and a place to rest.' Grants Pass City Manager Aaron Cubic did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Under the agreement, the city will also pay $85,000 to Disability Rights Oregon, allowing it to forgo any further obligation to pay legal fees. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
FTC LAWSUIT VS. GRAND CANYON DISMISSED AGAINST ALL PARTIES
Decision fully exonerates GCU after years of politically motivated lawfare by Biden Administration officials against largest Christian university in country PHOENIX, Aug. 15, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously today to dismiss its lawsuit against Grand Canyon University's largest service provider — Grand Canyon Education — and Brian Mueller, ending years of coordinated lawfare by government officials under the Biden Administration against the largest Christian university in the country. The lawsuit, which had already been dismissed by the United States District Court of Arizona against Grand Canyon University on jurisdictional grounds, has now been completely dropped after all parties filed a joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice with the court. In a unanimous ruling issued by FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and the other two commissioners, he stated: "This case, which we inherited from the previous administration, was filed nearly two years ago and has suffered losses in two motions to dismiss. These losses are compounded by recent events: Grand Canyon secured a victory over the Department of Education in a related matter before the Ninth Circuit; the Department of Education rescinded a massive fine levied on related grounds; and the Internal Revenue Service confirmed that Grand Canyon University is properly claiming 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation designation." GCU President Brian Mueller said he was appreciative that current FTC officials took an objective look at the case and recognized the numerous agencies and courts that have already ruled in GCU's favor on the same allegations. "As we have stated from the beginning, not only were these accusations false, but the opposite is true," Mueller said. "We go above and beyond what is required in our disclosures and are recognized as a leader in this area." GCU has also maintained that the allegations were a coordinated effort by former officials within the Biden Administration to undermine a thriving Christian university. "They threw everything they had at us for four years, and yet, despite every unjust accusation leveled against us, we have not only survived but have continued to thrive as a university," Mueller said. "That is a testament, first and foremost, to the strength and dedication of our faculty, staff, students and their families. Above all, it speaks to our unwavering belief that the truth would ultimately prevail." BACKGROUND: A COORDINATED CAMPAIGN Shortly after GCU filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education challenging its nonprofit classification, then-FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra publicly announced in October 2021 that his agency would work alongside ED and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to intensify scrutiny of for-profit institutions — a category which Democrats historically have opposed and which ED controversially kept GCU in 2019 despite prior approvals from all other regulatory bodies. Those agencies, under the guise of "consumer protection," collectively launched five investigations against GCU in what essentially were fishing expeditions requesting voluminous amounts of information in hopes of uncovering wrongdoing. Each claim by one agency subsequently triggered copycat lawsuits and investigations by the other agencies for the same claim, flooding GCU with duplicative allegations and forcing the university to expend thousands of employee hours and millions of dollars to defend itself. The major "findings" of those inquiries — which were related to GCU's doctoral disclosures and nonprofit status — have now been repeatedly discredited or dismissed by multiple agencies and courts. Doctoral program disclosures: GCU's financial disclosures around continuation courses in its doctoral programs — which are common in higher education — were deemed a "substantial misrepresentation" by former ED officials despite the fact that GCU provides more transparency than is legally required or that other universities typically provide. The same allegations, which resulted in an unprecedented fine of $37.7 million by ED, were reiterated in the FTC lawsuit. Numerous independent agencies and courts have refuted or dismissed those accusations: Similar doctoral claims were rejected by both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a parallel case (Young v. GCU). GCU's accrediting body, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), described GCU's disclosures as "robust and thorough" in its 2021 comprehensive review. A 2024 review of GCU's disclosures and processes by the Arizona State Approving Agency for the Department of Veterans Affairs found "no substantiated findings." Finally, in March 2025, ED itself rescinded the proposed fine, with prejudice — finding no wrongdoing by GCU and confirming that the university did not violate any Title IV requirements. ED stated: "Unlike the previous administration, we will not persecute and prosecute colleges and universities based on their religious affiliation." Notably, former ED officials, including Federal Student Aid Chief Operating Officer Richard Cordray and Secretary Miguel Cardona, did not cite any student complaints in imposing their unprecedented fine, yet publicly accused GCU of "lying" to its students and called for the university to be "shut down." Nonprofit status: GCU's 2018 return to its historic status as a 501(c)(3) Arizona nonprofit institution, which followed a lawful and transparent process, was repeatedly contested by ED and cited again in the FTC lawsuit despite the fact that it had been approved or acknowledged by: IRS State of Arizona HLC Arizona Board for Private Postsecondary Education NCAA Athletics Independent evaluations from two nationally recognized accounting/finance firms confirmed the nonprofit transaction was at fair market value and would benefit the university. GCU's status was further validated when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in November 2024 that ED lacked the authority under the Higher Education Act to apply the legal standard it used in making such a determination and remanded it back to the Department to apply the correct standard. And, in May 2025, the IRS reaffirmed GCU's status after completing a comprehensive four-year audit of the university. In light of the Ninth Circuit ruling and IRS reaffirmation, ED is currently re-examining its classification of GCU as it pertains to Title IV funding and the university is hopeful that a decision will be rendered soon. Ten Arizona Congressional members have sent a bipartisan letter urging ED to recognize GCU's nonprofit status. VA audits: A VA State Approving Agency (SAA) inquiry in 2023 claimed that two factual and commonly used statements in GCU's advertising – "Cybersecurity experts are in high demand" and "Every company needs cybersecurity" – were somehow "erroneous, deceptive or misleading." Seventeen of the top 23 undergraduate cybersecurity programs in the U.S. News and World Report rankings have made similar statements about a variety of their cybersecurity programs. To our knowledge, none of those well-respected institutions have received any type of review of their advertising claims by the VA. After GCU disputed the findings and detailed its extensive processes to ensure the validity of its statements in marketing and advertising communications, the SAA was satisfied with GCU's response and took no further action. Second (2024) and third (2025) VA/SAA risk-based audits, both triggered by the FTC lawsuit, resulted in "no substantiated findings" after they completed thorough on-campus examinations of the university's disclosures and processes. A LARGER PATTERN The disturbing pattern in the allegations brought by former agency officials in the Biden Administration is that they center on practices that are commonplace among institutions in higher education, yet GCU was singled out for disproportionate and unusually aggressive scrutiny. "This was not about protecting students and went well beyond normal regulatory activity," Mueller said. "The language used by these officials, the record fines they sought, and the baseless accusations they made all point to a broader ideological agenda." This 2024 commentary from the Goldwater Institute summarized the situation: "The real motivation for department bureaucrats seems clear: even if they can't prove their allegations against GCU, they intend for the process to be the punishment." LOOKING FORWARD With the FTC lawsuit now dismissed and all federal government allegations resolved in its favor, GCU is focusing on the future. "We support common sense government oversight but we vehemently reject ideologically driven, weaponized government actions that are not applied equally and equitably to all institutions," Mueller said. "As an institution that has a strong record of cooperation and great relationships with 26 different regulatory and accrediting bodies, we are doing an exemplary job of addressing the many challenges that are plaguing higher education while also living out our Christian mission both on our campus and in the surrounding community. That is reflected in the growing demand from students and families who are seeking a higher education option at GCU that is affordable and taught from a Christian worldview perspective. That mission, not politics, is our motivation and we look forward to putting our full attention to those efforts in the future." About Grand Canyon University: Grand Canyon University was founded in 1949 and is Arizona's premier private Christian university. GCU is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and offers 353 academic programs, emphases and certificates for both traditional undergraduate students and working professionals. The University's curriculum emphasizes interaction with classmates, both in-person and online, and individual attention from instructors while fusing academic rigor with Christian values to help students find their purpose and become skilled, caring professionals. For more information, visit View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Grand Canyon University
CBS News
5 hours ago
- CBS News
Transgender runner Evie Parts sues NCAA and Swarthmore College for removal from track team
Long-distance runner Evie Parts sued the NCAA and Swarthmore College as well as members of its athletic department on the grounds that they illegally removed her from the track team because she is a transgender athlete. Parts' lawsuit said the NCAA's ban on transgender athletes in women's sports did not have legal grounds because it's not a governmental organization and therefore does not have jurisdiction over Pennsylvania state law or the Title IX federal statute. She was removed from the team on Feb. 6, the day the NCAA issued its new policy on transgender athletes. Swarthmore men's and women's track coach Peter Carroll, athletic director Brad Koch and athletics officials Christina Epps-Chiazor and Valerie Gomez also were named in the lawsuit. According to the complaint, they sent Parts into "such a depressive state that she engaged in self-harm and in one moment told a friend that she wanted to kill herself." "We stand by the allegations in the complaint," said Susie Cirilli, an attorney who, along with the law firm Spector, Gadon, Rosen and Vinci, represents Parts. "As stated in the complaint, the NCAA is a private organization that issued a bigoted policy. Swarthmore College chose to follow that policy and disregard federal and state law." Swarthmore did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The NCAA chose not to comment. The NCAA changed its participation policy for transgender athletes to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth. That change came a day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports. Pennsylvania's state Senate approved a bill by a 32-18 margin on May 6 to ban transgender athletes from competing in women's and girls' sports at the collegiate and K-12 levels. But the state's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives isn't expected to vote on the bill. Parts joined the Swarthmore track team in the fall of 2020 before then taking off the following four winter and spring seasons. She went back to the Division III team in 2023 to compete in the indoor and outdoor track seasons and in cross country. When the NCAA issued its ban, the lawsuit states, Parts was told by Epps-Chiazor and Gomez that she could compete with the men's team or as an unattached athlete. She would only receive medical treatment, the complaint says, if she competed on the men's team. Also, according to the lawsuit, Carroll and his staff were not allowed to coach Parts, she could not travel with the team, was not allowed to receive per diem or food and had to pay her way into meets. Parts also couldn't wear a Swarthmore uniform. Swarthmore "fully reinstated" Parts on April 11, the lawsuit says, and she competed on the women's team until graduating in May. Parts won the 10,000 meters in April at the Bill Butler Invitational.
