Barring students from participating in extracurricular activities consistent with their gender identity would violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act

State High School League requests guidance on Trump Administration Executive Order

Attorney General’s Office releases official opinion

February 20, 2025 (SAINT PAUL)  — Today, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office released a formal legal opinion that President Donald Trump’s Executive Order banning transgender students from participating in extracurricular activities consistent with their gender identity does not supersede protections from discrimination in the Minnesota Constitution or Minnesota laws, and that complying with the Executive Order would be a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 

Under State law, the Attorney General’s Office may issue a legal opinion upon the request of a limited number of public officials or bodies. The Attorney General’s Office produced today’s opinion at the request of the Minnesota State High School League, which asked the Office for an opinion on whether Executive Order 14201 entitled “Keeping Men Out Of Women’s Sports” preempts the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the equal protection clause of the Minnesota Constitution, and whether complying with the Executive Order opens schools up to claims for violations of the MHRA.

The opinion first considers whether Executive Order 14201 supersedes Minnesota law and finds that it does not. Federal law preempts conflicting state laws where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, and where the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purpose of Congress in enacting the relevant federal law. In order to preempt state law, however, a federal action must have the force and effect of law. An executive order will only have the force and effect of laws when it is issued pursuant to a statutory mandate or delegation of authority from Congress. Executive Order 14201 was not issued pursuant to a statutory mandate or express delegation of authority from Congress. While the Executive Order references Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX does not authorize the President to issue directives with the force of law. Therefore, the Executive Order does not supersede Minnesota law.

The opinion then considers whether complying with the Executive Order and banning transgender students from participating in extracurriculars consistent with their gender identity would violate the MHRA, and finds that it would. The plain language of the MHRA prohibits discrimination by schools against students based on their gender identity. 

The Minnesota Human Rights Act declares that the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution without discrimination is a civil right. Minn. Stat. 363A.02, subds. 1(5) & (2). The MHRA’s educational institution section provides that “[i]t is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution, or the services rendered thereby to any person because of . . . gender identity[.]” Minn. Stat. § 363A.13, subd. 1. The MHRA specifically defines “gender identity” to mean “a person’s inherent sense of being a man, woman, both, or neither. A person’s gender identity may or may not correspond to their assigned sex at birth or to their primary or secondary sex characteristics.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 50. 

The opinion concludes that, based on the plain language of the statute, educational institutions and the Minnesota State High School League would violate the MHRA by prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in extracurricular activities consistent with their gender identity.

The full opinion is available on Attorney General’s website.