D.M. v. Minnesota State High School League

Background

D.M. and Z.G., both minors represented by their parents or guardians, challenged a Minnesota State High School League rule providing that competitive dance team is a girls-only sport. D.M. had participated in his school’s recreational dance team and served as the competitive team’s student manager, but was told he could not compete. Z.G. had taken dance classes for years and was also told he could not join the competitive team.

The plaintiffs alleged that the rule violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause. They moved for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order intended to prevent harm while a case is pending. The requested order would have prohibited the League from enforcing the girls-only rule during the competitive season.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the four preliminary-injunction factors: likely irreparable harm, the balance of harms, the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success, and the public interest. Because the challenged policy was supported by Minnesota law, the court required the plaintiffs to show that they were likely to prevail on their claims.

On equal protection, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, meaning that a sex-based classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. The court concluded that Minnesota’s objective of addressing girls’ past and present underrepresentation in high-school athletics was important. It also concluded that maintaining a girls-only dance team was substantially related to that objective because admitting boys would not increase girls’ participation. The plaintiffs therefore were not likely to succeed on their equal-protection claim.

On Title IX, the plaintiffs argued that dance team was an extracurricular activity rather than a sport. The court concluded that the League had authority to classify dance team as an interscholastic sport and that competitive dance had the characteristics of a sport, including rules, athletic selection standards, competitions, and a state tournament. The court further stated that Title IX permits separate athletic teams by sex in circumstances covered by its regulations. Even assuming the competitive-skill exception did not apply, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success because Title IX did not prohibit girls-only athletic teams where athletic opportunities for girls had previously been limited.

The court found that the plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm because they were being denied the opportunity to participate in their chosen sport. However, it concluded that the public interest favored maintaining the rule and that an injunction could disrupt the imminent dance-team season and create compliance concerns for the League.

Disposition

The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on either claim and denied their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.