Minnesota’s top court lets man sue over women’s powerlifting

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the lawsuit of a man aiming to compete among female powerlifters may return to lower courts for further litigation. JayCee Cooper, a man who identifies as a transgender woman, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 after he was barred from participating in a women’s bench press competition in 2018.

Cooper’s legal team argued before the high court last December and alleged that USA Powerlifting’s refusal to let Cooper participate constituted illegal discrimination. The state’s 1993 Human Rights Act against sex discrimination specifically protected transgender people from discriminatory treatment, like being excluded from competition, Cooper’s team argued.

Attorneys representing USA Powerlifting argued that Cooper’s participation would displace and possibly harm women, who the law also protects from discrimination. For the Human Rights Act to apply, Cooper needs to prove that the USA Powerlifting made its decision out of prejudice, attorneys argued. USA Powerlifting further noted that Cooper was welcome to participate in its MX division, created in 2021 specifically to accommodate lifters who identify themselves as transgender or nonbinary.

Cooper’s initial trial win was overturned by an appeals court. The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which both affirmed and remanded parts of the case back to the lower courts for more litigation.

What parts were accepted, and what was questioned? Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, USA Powerlifting’s decision to block Cooper from participating in the women’s category is discriminatory at face value, according to the state Supreme Court’s ruling. However, the court noted that the law included a section protecting businesses from discrimination claims when there’s a legitimate business purpose defense at stake. Lower courts must consider whether competitive fairness in the competition satisfies the law’s legitimate business purpose defense, the justices noted. 

Dig deeper: Read my previous reporting on the case’s oral arguments before the state’s high court last December.