by Donald Eng
HARTFORD, CT — Legislative Republicans are preparing for another attempt to ban transgender athletes from girls sports in Connecticut, this time with the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled last week that states could regulate gender identity in sports and could ban transgender athletes from competing in girls sports.
State Rep. Tracy Marra, R-Darien, who had co-filed an amicus brief in the case, said the ruling was self-evident.
“We shouldn’t have to explain, we shouldn’t need definitions,” she said.
Marra disagreed with the line of thought that the issue affected only a handful of youths.
“They don’t play in a silo,” she said. “They play with other teammates. They play against other opponents. They play against other teams.”
Christy Mitchell, mother of Chelsea Mitchell, praised the Supreme Court decision. Christy’s daughter Chelsea Mitchell, a former state track athlete, was one of four girls to file a lawsuit against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Association, alleging that the association’s policies allowing transgender athletes to compete based on their gender identity had cost them championship titles and other awards.
“As the Supreme Court acknowledged, these things matter to young girls,” she said.
State Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, cited a 2025 bill proposed by House Republicans that he said would have codified the issue in law. The proposal, House Bill 5352, would have banned those assigned male at birth from participating on girls teams and using girls locker rooms and other facilities.
The bill did not advance out of the Education Committee.
Fishbein said the Supreme Court decision was likely to have an effect on the Connecticut case, even though Connecticut does not have a statute legislating transgender athletes in sports.
“What I would expect to happen … is that the court will reach out to the lawyers and ask for briefings on how this case actually affects that case,” he said.
Marra said the party would once again propose a bill seeking to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls sports.
But the issue could be complicated. In its brief text, H.B. 5352 does not include any language specifying how eligibility would be determined. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, which formerly used a testosterone-level test to determine eligibility, announced last year that it had switched to following the gender assigned at birth. In a small percentage of cases – an estimated 1 in 2,000 – a newborn’s sex cannot be determined at birth.
Marra also suggested the SRY gene test – which is a test for a gene located on the Y chromosome and which is responsible for male sex development – could be used as could a physical exam, which in Connecticut is required for public school students in pre-K, kindergarten, seventh grade and eleventh grade.
For his part, Gov. Ned Lamont said he would leave eligibility up to individual leagues and athletic associations, and not involve courts or legislatures. He said the ruling had not changed his opinion.
“The ruling said some of those red states can ban kids from sports,” he said. “We leave it up to the leagues. The NCAA has made their ruling. I don’t need a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats getting involved in this. I think, depending on age and such, the leagues can handle this and they’re doing it pretty well.”
John Holt, a spokesperson for the CIAC, cited the ongoing legal proceedings. He declined comment on the court ruling or the topic in general other than to say that the CIAC “has consistently held that its policies align with applicable state and federal law and will continue to do so.”