On Monday, February 24, 2025, Reuters reported that a U.S. judge declined to step down from a case concerning a collegiate athletic association’s policy regarding the participation of transgender athletes. The ruling comes amidst a lawsuit filed by a group of women’s collegiate volleyball players against the Mountain West Conference, which has been challenged for its stance on transgender athlete inclusion.
U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews, based in Denver, dismissed claims from the plaintiffs that his adoption of a courtroom protocol—encouraging the use of individuals’ preferred pronouns—constituted a conflict of interest. The judge articulated that the plaintiffs were conflating notions of “respect and courtesy” with perceived bias against them in the ongoing legal proceedings.
The controversy stems from a lawsuit initiated last year by nine volleyball players, among others, who alleged that three rival schools—Utah State University, the University of Wyoming, and Boise State University—refused to compete against San Jose State University’s women’s volleyball team because it included a transgender woman. These refusals were interpreted as forfeitures under a policy established by the Mountain West Conference in 2022, which governs participation based on gender identity.
The plaintiffs argue that this policy infringes upon their rights, claiming it constitutes sexual discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. They also contend that it violates their rights to free speech and equal protection as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the 1st and 14th Amendments, by penalizing their decision to boycott games against teams with transgender athletes.
In their request for Judge Crews to recuse himself, the plaintiffs highlighted his courtroom protocol, which aligns with practices adopted by several judges in Colorado’s federal court system. This protocol promotes identifying preferred pronouns for all participants—lawyers, litigants, and witnesses—during court proceedings. The plaintiffs assert that this protocol limits their expression by mandating a certain language use in relation to the transgender athlete involved in the case.
However, Judge Crews defended his position, stating that he had not compelled any party to use specific pronouns, including “she/her,” when referring to the transgender player. He maintained that his decision to do so was not indicative of bias, emphasizing that no party had been restricted or forced to conform to a particular speech pattern in the courtroom.
Crews noted that the use of preferred pronouns is not an uncommon practice within the judiciary, mentioning instances where other judges, including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, have similarly chosen to use a party’s preferred pronouns out of respect rather than bias. He reiterated the importance of maintaining decorum in court and ensuring that all individuals involved in the legal process are treated with dignity.
William Bock, representing the plaintiffs, confirmed that they would continue to advocate for Judge Crews’ recusal. As of now, no determination has been made regarding a potential appeal of the judge’s decision.
Source: Reuters
