Minnesota’s high court hears man's desire to compete in women’s powerlifting

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday to allow a man to compete in a women's powerlifting competition. 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 alleges that USA Powerlifting violated the state’s constitution by engaging in discrimination when it excluded the athlete from participating. Christy Hall, a staff attorney for the organization Gender Justice, represented Cooper on Tuesday and cited the state’s 1993 Human Rights Act against sex discrimination as the heart of her argument. This law specifically protects transgender people from discriminatory treatment, like being excluded from competition that aligns with one’s gender identity, Hall argued.

How does USA Powerlifting argue against state law? Ansis Viksnins, the attorney representing USA Powerlifting, said Cooper and his attorneys must prove that prejudice was the intentional motive for the decision to exclude Cooper, not simply that the decision itself was prejudicial. Additionally, Cooper’s participation would displace, discourage, and potentially harm women, another protected class, Viksnins argued. The defense noted that Cooper was welcome to participate in USA Powerlifting's MX division that was created in 2021 to specifically accommodate lifters who identified as transgender and nonbinary.

USA Powerlifting President Larry Maile shared data supporting the group’s concerns, statistically showing how the average man is stronger than the average woman. USA Powerlifting wants to include everyone, but it can’t prioritize one group at the disadvantage of another, he said.

An appeals court overturned Cooper's initial trial win over USA Powerlifting, noting that the association’s rejection of the athlete may have had nothing to do with the inconsistency of his sex. The athlete then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court to hear the case earlier this year. It is unclear when the high court planned to issue an opinion on the case.