In a landmark decision that has stirred both celebration and controversy, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week that USA Powerlifting’s longstanding policy banning transgender women from women’s competitions is discriminatory under state law. The ruling, issued on October 22, 2025, marks a significant victory for JayCee Cooper, the transgender athlete at the heart of the case, and for advocates of trans rights across Minnesota. Yet, the decision also leaves a critical legal question unresolved, sending part of the case back to a lower court for further deliberation.
JayCee Cooper’s struggle with USA Powerlifting began in 2018, when she was barred from competing in the women’s division at two Minnesota powerlifting events. Cooper, who identifies as a trans woman, applied to compete but was denied on the grounds of a policy that explicitly excluded transgender women from participating alongside cisgender women. According to Minnesota Reformer, Cooper responded by filing a lawsuit in 2021, arguing that the policy violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), which protects individuals from discrimination in public accommodations.
The Supreme Court’s 35-page unanimous decision, authored by Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, was clear in its assessment: “We agree with Cooper that USA Powerlifting’s policy is discriminatory on its face; there is therefore no genuine dispute that USA Powerlifting discriminated against Cooper because of her transgender status.” The court found that the policy was “facially discriminatory”—meaning the language of the rule itself, without consideration of intent or enforcement, treated transgender women differently from cisgender women. The ruling pointed out that USA Powerlifting’s own internal communications confirmed this approach. In a 2019 email, the organization’s executive committee president stated, “We do not allow male to female transgender athletes at all. Full stop.”
Importantly, the court’s decision focused on the application of the MHRA as it stood in 2018, when Cooper was first denied entry. At that time, the law associated transgender identity with sexual orientation, although a 2023 amendment authored by Rep. Leigh Finke later codified a separate definition of “gender identity.” The ruling thus affirmed that Cooper’s rights were violated when she was refused the opportunity to compete, and that the ban constituted unlawful discrimination in a public accommodation.
However, the Supreme Court did not close the book on the case. Instead, it remanded part of the matter back to the Ramsey County District Court to determine whether USA Powerlifting’s discriminatory policy might be justified as “reasonably necessary” for achieving its central mission—a narrow exception allowed under the MHRA. This means USA Powerlifting will have the opportunity to argue in court that excluding transgender women from the women’s division is essential for maintaining fairness in athletics, a claim they have consistently made.
USA Powerlifting’s attorney, Ansis Viksnins, told the Associated Press that the ruling gives the organization a chance to present its case to a jury. “Our opponents like to spin losses as victories and victories as victories, so I’m not surprised that they are calling this claim a victory,” Viksnins said, emphasizing the opportunity to explain “why excluding a transgender woman from competing in the women’s division was for legitimate reasons, for maintaining fairness in athletics.” USA Powerlifting has argued that transgender women possess physiological advantages—such as increased body and muscle mass, bone density, bone structure, and connective tissues—that could undermine the integrity of women’s competitions.
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision does not extend to school sports, as it is grounded in public accommodations law rather than Title IX, the federal statute governing sex discrimination in education. This distinction is significant, especially as Minnesota’s own educational policies regarding transgender athletes have come under federal scrutiny. Last month, the U.S. Department of Education found Minnesota in violation of Title IX, further highlighting the complex legal landscape facing transgender athletes.
For Cooper and her legal team, however, the ruling is a resounding victory. Jess Braverman, legal director at Gender Justice and Cooper’s lead counsel, hailed the decision as a “historic victory for fairness, equity, and the fundamental rights of all Minnesotans.” Braverman told ABC News that the ruling “sends a clear and powerful message: transgender people have a right to enjoy public spaces in Minnesota like sporting events, restaurants, and movie theaters, free from targeted discrimination.” She added that the Supreme Court left only a “really narrow carve-out” which would be difficult for USA Powerlifting to justify in court, suggesting that the victory for trans rights is unlikely to be reversed.
Yet the ruling has not gone unchallenged. Minnesota conservatives have condemned the decision, framing it as a threat to the safety and fairness of women’s sports. House Speaker Lisa Demuth stated, “This issue is ultimately about safety and fairness, and Minnesotans overwhelmingly agree that their daughters and granddaughters should not be forced to compete against boys.” GOP state Rep. Ben Davis went further, calling the ruling “a perversion of justice by a radical left court” and vowing to pursue legislation to ban transgender women from women’s sports. Such rhetoric reflects a broader national debate that has intensified in recent years, as lawmakers and advocacy groups clash over the inclusion of transgender athletes in competitive sports.
The timing of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision is particularly notable, coming amid a wave of political attacks on trans-inclusive sports policies across the United States. President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports at the federal level, prompting Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to file suit against the administration in April 2025. The legal battle is expected to escalate, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear cases on similar sports bans in Idaho and West Virginia in the coming months.
Other athletic organizations, such as World Athletics, have implemented their own restrictions on transgender women’s eligibility, often citing concerns about physiological advantages. However, research in this area remains complex and contested. A study published last year found that transgender women on hormone therapy may actually face disadvantages in certain athletic metrics, such as lower body strength and oxygen consumption, complicating arguments about inherent competitive advantages.
While the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling does not address the issue of damages—Cooper’s original request for $50,000 in compensation remains unresolved—it does partially reverse a previous appeals court decision and upholds the charge of accommodation discrimination. In 2023, a district court had already ordered USA Powerlifting to “cease and desist from all unfair discriminatory practices,” including the trans ban, a decision that now carries even greater weight following the Supreme Court’s affirmation.
As the case returns to district court for further consideration, the outcome will likely set a precedent for how athletic organizations across Minnesota, and potentially beyond, navigate the inclusion of transgender athletes. For now, the message from the state’s highest court is unambiguous: policies that categorically exclude transgender women from women’s competitions are discriminatory under Minnesota law, and the burden is now on sports organizations to prove otherwise if they wish to maintain such bans.
With both legal and cultural battles still unfolding, the story of JayCee Cooper and USA Powerlifting offers a window into the evolving struggle over fairness, identity, and inclusion in American sports.
