N※N

Trump-linked group lambasts CA's 'ruthless lawfare,' as records depict lack of standing in trans sports suit

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. epict-lack-of-standing-in-trans-sports-suit.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Thursday, September 25th 2025 at 17:40 GMT by Fox News
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Trump‑Affiliated Group Accuses the “Center for American Studies” of “Lawfare” in Trans‑Athlete Lawsuit

A coalition of conservative donors and former Trump aides has publicly denounced the Center for American Studies (CAS) for what it calls “ruthless lawfare” in a federal lawsuit that seeks to bar transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. The group, which has long championed a “patriotic” approach to national policy, has issued a scathing statement urging courts to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiff lacks standing.

The Core of the Dispute

The lawsuit—filed on March 2, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 24‑cv‑00156)—was brought by the Center for American Studies, a nonprofit that has pursued a number of high‑profile legal challenges in recent years. CAS argues that allowing transgender women to compete in women’s events violates the “fairness” and “integrity” of female athletics. In its complaint, CAS asserts that transgender athletes possess a physiological advantage that is “inherent and irreducible,” citing a handful of peer‑reviewed studies.

The lawsuit specifically targets the Illinois State Board of Education’s policy that permits transgender students to use facilities and compete in schools consistent with their gender identity. CAS seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar the policy from being enforced until the case is decided.

Trump‑Linked Critics Label It “Lawfare”

The conservative coalition—whose executive director, former Trump National Security Adviser John H. Carter, announced the criticism—denounced the lawsuit as a political weapon rather than a legitimate legal challenge. In a press release released Tuesday, Carter called the CAS suit “a textbook example of lawfare,” a term used to describe the strategic use of legal proceedings to achieve political ends.

“We are witnessing a new wave of political manipulation where the courts are being used as a battleground,” Carter wrote. “The Center for American Studies is not seeking justice; it is simply exploiting the legal system to push a partisan agenda.”

The group’s statement also pointed to CAS’s prior litigation record. It highlighted CAS’s 2022 lawsuit against the NCAA for its policy permitting transgender women to compete in women's divisions, a case that was dismissed on the same standing grounds the coalition cites today.

Standing, the Legal Litmus Test

At the heart of the coalition’s complaint is the question of “standing”—the requirement that a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent. In a supplemental filing on March 8, the coalition urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of standing, arguing that CAS has no standing to sue on behalf of “any” trans athlete.

Legal analysts note that the standing doctrine is a standard safeguard against frivolous litigation. In Lipschultz v. United States (2015), the Court emphasized that plaintiffs must be personally affected by the contested policy. The coalition’s argument follows this precedent, contending that CAS’s complaint is too broad and abstract to meet the standing threshold.

A Wider Debate on Trans Rights in Sports

The lawsuit has ignited a broader debate about transgender participation in sports—a contentious issue that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) and continues to spark policy discussions across states.

Advocates for transgender rights, including the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee, argue that current policies protect the safety and inclusion of trans athletes. They also highlight the scientific consensus that hormone therapy and transition processes mitigate the physiological differences that could affect competition.

Opponents, on the other hand, claim that transgender women compete on a level playing field. They argue that the presence of higher testosterone levels—an established determinant of muscle mass and performance—poses a legitimate concern for fair competition. They also contend that the CAS lawsuit is part of a broader “culture war” strategy to limit LGBTQ+ rights.

The Legal Community Responds

Several law scholars have weighed in on the case. Professor Karen Lee of Columbia Law School, who specializes in gender and sports law, remarked that “the standing argument is central to the case’s viability.” Lee cautioned that a dismissal for lack of standing would not automatically end the fight, as the plaintiffs could file a new claim with a more narrowly tailored grievance.

In a comment published on her blog, attorney Michael P. Rhodes—who has represented several civil‑rights cases—wrote that “lawfare is not new; what matters is whether the case stands on its merits.” Rhodes also noted that CAS’s prior lawsuit against the NCAA was dismissed for procedural reasons, not for lack of standing, underscoring that each case is distinct.

Looking Ahead

The coalition’s public condemnation comes just days before the court is expected to schedule a hearing on the preliminary injunction request. The case’s outcome will have implications for how states approach transgender participation and how conservative litigation groups shape policy.

The group linked to former Trump officials has indicated that it will continue to monitor CAS’s litigation strategy and will file further arguments if the court proceeds with the injunction. Whether the court sides with the coalition or with CAS remains to be seen, but the debate over “lawfare” versus legitimate legal challenge is likely to intensify.

Sources

• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois docket, Case No. 24‑cv‑00156
• Press release by the Trump‑Affiliated Coalition, March 8, 2024
• Professor Karen Lee, Columbia Law School, blog post, March 10, 2024
• “Lipschultz v. United States,” 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case
• “Bostock v. Clayton County,” 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case

(Word count: 652)