Texas students taking steroids for gender-affirming care ineligible for UIL sports: Paxton
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released an opinion Thursday outlining that public school students taking steroids to undergo gender-affirming care would be ineligible to participate in University Interscholastic League sports, and students suspected of taking steroids for such purpose would be barred from participating in athletic competitions until an investigation is concluded.
Paxton issued the opinion at the request of Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath, who reached out for guidance after 'receiving several complaints' about a student possibly taking testosterone to undergo gender-affirming care, according to the opinion.
UIL prohibits students competing in athletic events from using steroids and requires them to agree to randomized tests, but it does make exceptions for a 'valid medical purpose,' Paxton said in the opinion. A student's gender-transitioning treatment can't be a valid purpose since such care is prohibited under Texas law, Paxton said.
The UIL is the governing body for student athletic, fine arts and academic competitions in public schools.
In 2023, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 14, which banned certain gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender children in Texas.
The state law prohibits doctors from providing gender-affirming medical treatments — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy or certain surgeries — to minors experiencing gender dysphoria, a condition in which a person's gender identity does not align with their sex at birth.
'Ultimately, the illegal provision of steroids to a child — conduct that would independently justify liability and revocation of one's medical license — cannot constitute a 'valid medical purpose,'' Paxton said in the letter.
Paxton also tells Morath that the UIL should question the eligibility of a student who is suspected of using steroids for the purposes of transitioning and that such suspected use 'obligates UIL to investigate as well as require the student-athlete to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are eligible.'
In October and November, Paxton sued three doctors after accusing them of violating the SB 14 ban on providing gender-affirming care to minors. On Tuesday, Paxton announced he'd entered agreements with two of the doctors to stop them from practicing medicine temporarily while the litigation continues and had obtained an injunction for a third to prevent the doctor from providing gender-affirming care to children.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas trans athletes taking steroids ineligible to play UIL sports
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 Supreme Court Cases To Watch in June 2025
The clock is ticking for the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the second week of June and the justices always try to wrap up their term before the calendar hits July. As of this writing, there are still 28 cases pending. Which means that a ton of big decisions will be dropping in the next few weeks. So, what's headed our way? Here are three noteworthy cases that I'm on the lookout for. This case involves a Texas law requiring websites that contain "pornographic material" to verify that the site's users are at least 18 years old. The law's stated goal is to prevent minors from viewing porn. But as the Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, points out, there is no way to screen out minors online without also vetting the ages of adults, and Texas' intrusive age-verification process unavoidably—and unconstitutionally—burdens the free speech rights of those adults. The state's age-verification requirement "imposes a clear burden," the Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court, "forcing adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks—which the statute leaves largely unaddressed—before they can access constitutionally protected speech." The specific legal question here is about what level of judicial review the Texas law should face. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the age-verification law should be judged under "rational-basis review," which is the most deferential—meaning, it is the most pro-government—form of judicial review. It is no exaggeration to say that when the government encounters rational-basis review, the government stands an excellent chance of winning the case. However, cases involving fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are normally judged under a very different standard. That standard, known as "strict scrutiny," is the most searching form of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, the government must, first, prove that its law serves a compelling government intent, and, second, prove that the law is the least restrictive means available of advancing that interest. If the government fails to satisfy either of those two prongs, the law is struck down. In other words, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton asks whether the 5th Circuit got it wrong by deferring to the state under rational-basis review when the 5th Circuit should have instead given the state a far more rigorous exam under strict scrutiny. If that sounds like so much legalese, please believe me when I say that the stakes are high. If the First Amendment gets watered down from "strict scrutiny" to "rational-basis" in this case, then the First Amendment will be watered down in many future cases, too. A win for Texas means a loss for freedom of speech. The FBI raided Tina Martin's home in 2017. Still reeling from an exploding flash grenade, she found herself held at gunpoint, unable to reach or comfort her understandably terrified seven-year-old son, who was in another room. To make matters worse, it was a wrong-house raid. The feds were supposed to be at a different house on a different block looking for a different person. They wrecked Martin's home and traumatized her family because the officers never even bothered to make sure they were at the correct location. However, when Martin filed a civil suit seeking damages, the federal court said she was barred from filing suit under the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act. So, the legal question now before the Supreme Court is whether Martin should have been able to sue. In short, this case is about holding the government accountable for its misdeeds. And make no mistake, the government is actively trying to dodge accountability for the entirely avoidable damage that it caused. As Reason's Billy Binion has noted, the Justice Department's arguments against accountability include the claim, apparently made with a straight face before SCOTUS, that it would have been too much to ask for those federal officers to pause in the driveway and check the address on the mailbox before storming the house. "That sort of decision is filled with policy tradeoffs because checking the house number at the end of the driveway," Assistant to the Solicitor General Frederick Liu told the justices, "means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire from the windows." If you listen to the audio recording of that oral argument, you can hear Justice Neil Gorsuch scoff out the word "really" in apparent disbelief while Liu made the above statement. Gorsuch then asked the government lawyer: "How about making sure you're on the right street? Is that…you know, asking too much?" To require the government to make amends for its misconduct should never be asking too much. A win for Tina Martin in this case is a win for greater government accountability overall. This is the case arising from President Donald Trump's executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary legal visitors, such as people holding a work visa. As I've previously argued, Trump's position is unconstitutional under the text, history, and original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Supreme Court rules on the merits of Trump's order, he deserves to lose 9–0. But this case is not exactly about the legality of that presidential decree. Rather, it is about whether federal district judges may issue nationwide injunctions that entirely block such presidential decrees from going into effect while the litigation against them plays out in court. Judging by last month's oral arguments, there is a chance that Trump will secure some kind of win on the nationwide injunctions issue. "Which is not exactly a surprise," as I wrote at the time, because several justices "are already on record as critics of the practice." It is possible that those critical justices will craft a technical ruling that avoids the birthright citizenship debate while at the same time using that debate as the opportunity to reach the result that they already wanted to reach on nationwide injunctions. But it is also possible that the Court will not be able to reach any kind of consensus. For its part, the Trump administration has made the sweeping claim that nationwide injunctions are always unconstitutional. Are there actually five justices on the Court willing to go that far? Maybe. But then again, maybe several justices would prefer to limit the practice without abolishing it outright. We may end up with a fractured opinion that ultimately settles little. The Supreme Court is currently scheduled to release its next batch of opinions on Thursday, June 12. We'll see what we get. One of the upsides of living in upstate New York is that there's a historic drive-in movie theater operating just a short distance away. The Hi-Way Drive-In first opened its gates in 1951 and recently kicked off its 2025 season. Attendees get to enjoy a nice mix of new releases and repertory favorites on the drive-in's four (count 'em!) huge outdoor screens. You're most likely to find me hanging around when there's a double-feature of horror classics on the bill, such as the memorable night a few years back when I caught George Romero's Dawn of the Dead followed by Romero's Day of the Dead. A bucket of fresh popcorn, a cool night breeze, and a horde of shambling zombies. What's not to love? The post 3 Supreme Court Cases To Watch in June 2025 appeared first on
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
TN bill proposes removing public officials who ‘disrupt' ICE efforts
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Republican lawmakers in Tennessee filed a bill Monday that would make releasing certain records regarding immigration enforcement actions a crime. The filing of Senate Bill 1464 comes after Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell enacted Executive Order 30, which requires the Metro Nashville Police Department and Metro councilmembers to document and publish interactions with federal immigration authorities. In May, a city document detailing 35 immigration-related interactions between Metro Police and federal agencies was released. The report initially named individuals, including a Metro Council member, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement analyst, and Homeland Security officers. However, the names were later removed from the public version of the report. PREVIOUS | TN House Speaker demands Nashville mayor rescind executive order tied to ICE interactions Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) has since demanded that the mayor rescind the order, claiming it jeopardizes state and federal agents. However, Mayor O'Connell stated he has no plans to rescind the order, adding that it 'helps makes sure that nobody can accuse local, state or federal entities of activity that did or did not occur.' Now, Sexton has joined Senator Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) in filing Senate Bill 1464. 'Mayor O'Connell's decision to release sensitive information undermines the rule of law, violates public trust, and jeopardizes the safety of those who protect our communities. This bill makes it clear: if you use your office to interfere with federal immigration enforcement or endanger officers, there will be swift and serious consequences. Tennessee will not be a sanctuary for lawlessness,' said Sexton. According to the filing, SB14 will: Make it a Class E felony for state and local officials to negligently release identifying information of officers involved in immigration enforcement; Provide for outster from office for those who violate the law; Expand the confidentiality protections under the Tennessee Public Records Act to cover undercover officers and sensitive enforcement activity; Strengthen existing penalties in state law for unauthorized disclosures of protected law enforcement information. 'The people of Tennessee expect their elected leaders to protect law enforcement—not endanger them,' said Leader Johnson. 'When a public official like Mayor O'Connell chooses political activism over public safety, especially by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, he has no business holding office in this state.' ⏩ Sexton added that Tennessee stands with law enforcement and 'will not become California, and Nashville will not become LA or San Francisco.' The bill will be formally considered during the 2026 legislative session. The legislation is reportedly co-sponsored by all the Senate Republican leadership — including Lt. Governor Randy McNally, Speaker Pro Tempore Ferrell Haile, Republican Caucus Chairman Ken Yager — as well as Finance Committee Chairman Bo Watson. News 2 has reached out to O'Connell's office for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Victory: U.S. Blocks Mexico's Gun Industry Lawsuit
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mexico's lawsuit against American firearms manufacturers, siding with a multistate coalition led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The decision marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates and American manufacturers facing international legal challenges. Mexico had sued Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, claiming the companies bore responsibility for weapons used by drug cartels. The lawsuit sought to hold American manufacturers liable for criminal activities south of the border. 'Mexico cannot blame American firearms companies for its ongoing internal war against the cartels, and in no way can a foreign nation be allowed to undermine our Second Amendment rights,' Paxton said. 'I proudly supported our firearms manufacturers against Mexico's baseless assault on our liberties and am pleased the Supreme Court unanimously sided with common sense, the rule of law, and America.' The attorneys general coalition argued that Mexico has numerous options to address its gun violence problems. These include reporting dealers allegedly selling to cartels, seeking extradition of gun traffickers, or strengthening border controls. 'But it cannot end the domestic manufacturing of American firearms. Nor can it impose its policy preferences on the United States by judicial fiat,' the brief stated.
