Alliance Defending Freedom filed a motion on behalf of Female Athletes United to defend Washington’s voter-approved girls sports initiative against an ACLU-backed lawsuit, arguing that the state cannot adequately represent the athletes’ interests.
The Nov. 13 motion asks King County Superior Court to allow Female Athletes United to join the case as a defendant to defend Initiative 638. The request seeks the court’s permission to participate; it is not an order granting intervention.
“We’re asking to be allowed to step in and help the state of Washington defend the validity of the law so that I-638 goes into effect on December 3rd, just like the voters in the state of Washington asked for,” ADF attorney Hal Frampton told Fox News Digital.
WASHINGTON AG’S OFFICE INDICATES IT WILL DEFEND GIRLS’ SPORTS BALLOT MEASURE AFTER ACLU SUES TO BLOCK IT
The initiative would prohibit students who are biologically male from competing in school athletic competitions designated for female students. It also requires participants in girls’ competitions to provide verification of their biological sex from their personal healthcare provider as part of the sports physical process.
The lawsuit challenging it includes parents, TransFamilies and the Washington Education Association as plaintiffs. They argue the measure violates Washington’s constitution, including privacy and equal-rights protections, by excluding transgender girls and imposing sex-verification requirements on participants in girls’ sports that do not apply to boys’ sports.
Asked whether he trusted Washington Attorney General Nick Brown to defend the initiative, Frampton pointed to the athletes his organization represents.
“We trust female athletes to defend the law on behalf of the state of Washington,” he said. “That’s why we’re seeking to intervene and make sure that their perspective is part of the, part of the picture and part of the process.”
The motion argues that Washington’s previous defense of transgender participation in girls’ sports could prevent it from advancing all the arguments Female Athletes United wants the court to consider.
“While the State may defend its law as a permissible policy choice, FAU will argue not only that the Initiative is valid but that the U.S. Constitution, Title IX, and Title IX’s regulations require Washington to have female-only sports teams, as do pre-existing state laws,” the motion states.
SEATTLE MAYOR BACKS EFFORT TO BLOCK GIRLS’ SPORTS INITIATIVE THAT PASSED IN 36 OF WASHINGTON’S 39 COUNTIES
Those assertions are the organization’s legal arguments, which the motion asks the court to consider.
Brown announced Nov. 12 that he had appointed outside law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner to defend I-638 on the state’s behalf. He said the arrangement would allow the initiative to be defended while his office continued its work protecting transgender rights.
“My personal views do not dictate what laws get defended or the strength of that defense,” Brown said in his announcement.
Frampton said ADF was prepared to work with anyone defending the measure. Asked during the interview whether ADF had contacted the attorney general’s office, he answered, “Not that I’m aware.”
“What I know is that we will mount a vigorous defense for Initiative 638 on behalf of female athletes and that we will do everything in our power, make every argument available to us to ensure that democracy prevails and that fairness and safety for women reign in Washington,” he said.
The motion draws on accounts from athletes who describe competing against transgender athletes and, in some cases, considering leaving their school teams if the initiative is blocked.
WASHINGTON HS GIRLS BLAST MALE ATHLETE PARTICIPATING IN TRACK MEET: ‘DON’T THINK THAT THAT’S RIGHT OR FAIR’
The motion cites declarations from five Female Athletes United members: Soleil Hoefer, Charlie Garrett, Sierra Retzlaff, Elise Bierer and Ahnaleigh Wilson.
In a separate declaration, FAU board chair Kristine L. Brown describes the organization as a coalition of prospective, current and former female athletes, coaches, family members and other supporters. She says its work includes legal advocacy and protecting athletes’ privacy in locker rooms and other intimate spaces.
Brown says the organization does not engage in election campaigning, but individual members advocated for or voted for I-638. She identifies Washington athletes whose school sports opportunities the group seeks to protect.
Hoefer, who joined Frampton for the interview, said her experience in high school track helped motivate her advocacy.
“In my personal experience, I was made to run against a boy at state track, and my teammates had run against him the year prior,” she said.
Her declaration says she graduated from Prosser High School in 2025 and now attends Walla Walla Community College on a soccer scholarship. She also points to her younger sister, who plays high school volleyball and basketball, as a reason she supports the initiative.
Hoefer said the election result carried personal significance.
“I think it’s a matter of the voters seeing that they didn’t need to vote red or blue. It was voting for women and for our safety and our protection in sports,” she said.
Garrett, a Skyview High School runner, describes in her declaration walking off the starting line with teammate Retzlaff at a September meet involving a transgender runner from Camas High School.
Garrett says she later competed against the Camas athlete at postseason meets. According to her account, she finished third behind the athlete’s second-place finish at districts, and eighth behind the athlete’s seventh-place finish at regionals.
WOMEN WHO FACED BIOLOGICAL MALES IN GIRLS’ SPORTS AND LOCKER ROOMS SPEAK OUT AHEAD OF WASHINGTON STATE VOTE
“Standing up for what I believe is right has been isolating and difficult,” Garrett says in her declaration. “But it will all be worth it to protect girls from unfair competition and to protect girls’ safe spaces and opportunities.”
She says she might run for a club instead of her school this spring if a court blocks the initiative.
Retzlaff makes a similar statement in her signed declaration, dated Nov. 13, saying she might choose club running over school competition next year if I-638 does not take effect.
“It would break my heart if a court blocked Initiative 638,” Retzlaff says. “I have been fighting for it the last few months, and it has been one of the hardest things I have ever done.”
Bierer, a Battle Ground High School runner, describes in her declaration walking off the starting line alone at districts rather than competing against the Camas athlete.
“When the starting gun went off for the varsity race, I walked off the line with tears in my eyes,” her account says. “I was the only runner who did.”
Bierer says she will not return to the cross-country team next year if she must continue racing against biologically male athletes.
Wilson, an Eastmont High School runner, describes in her declaration supporting I-638 through public advocacy and signature gathering. She says she traveled around Washington gathering signatures and asking adults to vote for it.
“If a court blocked Initiative 638, it would be devastating to me,” Wilson says. “It would feel like my two and a half years of advocating for girls and the mental toll it has taken on me were a waste.”
Several of the athletes also address the verification requirement challenged in the lawsuit. Hoefer, Garrett, Retzlaff and Wilson say in their declarations that they would be comfortable having their doctors verify their sex for athletic eligibility.
Frampton said the athletes’ future participation is central to ADF’s effort.
“We’ll have members of FAU who are going to be competing next season, next year, and are depending on I-638 to guarantee them fairness and safety in women’s sports,” he said.
Read the full article here