Washington Democrat AG hands girls’ sports law defense to outside firm amid conflict of interest concerns

Brown announced Thursday that Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner will represent Washington in defending Initiative 638, which voters approved in the Nov. 3 election. The measure requires school districts to prohibit biological males from competing against female students in girls' sports competitions.

The decision comes after questions arose about potential conflicts of interest, as Brown's former law firm, Pacifica Law Group, is among the organizations challenging the initiative alongside the ACLU of Washington and Legal Voice.

Legal Challenge

Civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court on Monday seeking to block the initiative before its scheduled Dec. 3 effective date. Plaintiffs include families with children participating in school sports, the Washington Education Association and TransFamilies.

Opponents argue the restrictions violate state constitutional protections, including privacy and equal rights. They contend the requirements could expose girls to intrusive examinations and exclude transgender students from opportunities available to their classmates.

Verification Requirements

The initiative requires students seeking to participate in girls' sports competitions to provide a form signed by their health care provider verifying biological sex based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or naturally produced testosterone levels.

The measure's findings describe using the existing sports-physical process to protect fairness, safety and competitive balance in female athletics, without requiring every student to undergo a genital examination.

State Response

Brown emphasized that defending voter-enacted laws is a core responsibility, regardless of personal views. His office continues its work protecting transgender residents' health care and equal treatment.

Seattle education officials are pursuing their own response, with the Seattle School Board voting 7-0 Monday to authorize potential legal action concerning the measure. Board members argued the district needed courts to clarify its obligations under the initiative and existing protections.

The initiative had approximately 56% support in election returns. The court fight continues as the state prepares to defend the law while opponents seek to block its implementation.