By: Song Lee ‘26
Volume XI – Issue I – Fall 2025
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 5, 2025, President Trump made headlines with Executive Order 14201, aimed at “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” or barring transgender women from women’s sports “to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.” [1] Trump’s claims largely drew from his previous Executive Order 14168, defining “sex” as an “immutable biological classification as either male or female,” with female constituting “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.” [2] In this new era of American policy, Trump moved to remove federal financial backing for educational programs with transgender women in women’s sports teams, prompting a policy movement to remove funding at all levels of government. [3]
These changing tides in sports law merit an investigation into past legal action on transgender athletes. A transgender woman known as a trailblazing “sports pioneer,” as the first openly transgender player in tennis, was at the forefront of Richards v. U.S. Tennis Association in this New York State Supreme Court case. This impactful state case revolving around Reneé Richards competing in the US Open remains largely relevant in today’s national discourse around transgender women in competitive sports.
II. CASE FACTS
The plaintiff in this New York Supreme Court case was Dr. Reneé Richards, an ophthalmologist and tennis player who underwent sex reassignment surgery at the age of 41 in 1975. [4] The defendants were the United States Tennis Association (USTA), the United States Open Committee (USOC) under the USTA, and the Women's Tennis Association (WTA). [5] Preceding the operation, Dr. Richards successfully competed in men’s tennis, winning 3rd in the East in 1974 and 13th nationwide in the “men’s 35-and-over tennis.” [6] After the surgery, Dr. Richards won two of nine women’s tennis tournaments and played as “runner-up in three.” [7] On August 7th, 1977, Dr. Richards entered the women’s singles finals on track to compete in the United States Open Tennis Tournament, otherwise known as the United States Tennis Association (USTA) national championships, held beginning on August 25th, 1977. [8]
However, directly after the plaintiff applied to compete in the tournament in 1976, the USTA instituted a sex determination test called the Barr body test for the first time in the “95-year history” of the United States Open. [9] In fact, the USTA only implemented this sex-chromatin test in the US Open, not in any of its other tournaments, and the closest examination was a phenotype examination analyzing “primary and secondary sexual characteristics.” [10] The Barr verification test, on the other hand, identified if competing athletes have a second X chromosome, disregarding the “external genital appearance, internal sex characteristics, hormonal balance, and psychological identity of a female.” [11]
On June 27th and July 1st, Dr. Richards conducted the Barr test, but the results were found to be “ambiguous,” and the plaintiff was called to return for either a retest or a separate Karyotype test, a more costly and lengthy examination. [12] The Lenox Hill Hospital’s Institute of Sports Medicine and Athletic Trauma failed to institute “standardized procedure” accounting for Dr. Richards’s “herpes condition on those dates,” and the plaintiff did not return for further testing. [13] Despite the plaintiff’s demands to waive this requirement, the USTA maintained that the Barr test withdrew Dr. Richards’s application to compete due to her supposed failure to “appear at a qualifying site.” [14] The court found that the USTA and USOC implemented the Barr test as “a direct result” of Dr. Richards’s application and openness about her identity as a transgender athlete. [15] Dr. Richards had even indicated being transgender in a letter to Mike Blanchard, the US Open chairman at the time. [16]
III. LEGAL ARGUMENTS
In the 1970s, transgender communities started to become “recognized” at large in state courts. [17] For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court mandated including “sex conversion surgery” in healthcare coverage in Doe v. State, Dep't of Public Welfare, arguing that “[s]ex [which] connotes the anatomical qualities that determine whether one is male or female” does not match their experienced sex, creating the need for surgery.” [18] Furthermore, this case was catalyzed in the midst of the gay liberation movement of the 1970s, a momentous period of social upheaval and visibility of transgender communities. [19] Richards attempted to demonstrate that the defendants’ “binary concept of sex” was, at large, “overly simplistic and at odds with scientific understanding.” [20] Much of the legal argumentation hinged on state discrimination law, drawing from the knowledge of medical experts and professional tennis players. This case was one of many in a movement of transgender individuals bringing cases of employment discrimination before the court in this time period. [21]
Dr. Richards argued that this Barr test constituted an exclusionary policy that violated her rights under the New York State Human Rights Law and the Fourteenth Amendment. She sought a preliminary injunction to compete in the 1977 competition. [22] The plaintiff specifically argued that the defendants violated New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law, § 290 et seq.) and the 14th Amendment. [23] Section 290 of Executive Law holds that the State must provide all of its individuals “equal opportunity,” and failure to do so “whether because of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance” not only threatens their “rights and proper privileges” but endangers the “institutions and foundation of a free democratic State and threatens the peace, order health, safety and general welfare of the State and its inhabitants”. [24] Section 296 (subd 1, par [a]) holds that:
“it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex or disability, or marital status of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” [25]
The defendants, in turn, claimed that the Barr test was a necessary policy to implement equality, as transgender women have a “competitive advantage” given “physical training and development as a male” beyond “medical history.” [26] The defendants relied on Stanford University School of Medicine Dr. Daniel Federman’s affidavit, which asserted that the examination was affordable and reliable; however, the opinion later noted Dr. Federman did not support his analysis with any “physical examination of plaintiff,” making it “limited in its probative value.” [27] Dr. Federman found that the Y chromosome is tied to testes development, which creates more androgen than estrogen, giving most athletes assigned male at birth “greater height, different body proportions, and a higher muscle mass.” [28] Dr. Federman also argued that crucial biological aspects like height and skeletal structure cannot be altered after puberty. [29] The defendants thus contended that transgender women such as the plaintiff would have an inherent physical advantage in competitive sports and should not be recognized in the professional tennis match. As the Barr body test merely evaluates a second X chromosome rather than a Y chromosome, Dr. Federman claimed the Barr body test was insufficient in itself and that sex analysis should require the Karyotype test as well. [30]
Defendants argued that an “unknown” number of “female impersonators or imposters” threatened to take advantage of “millions of dollars of prize money,” suggesting that accepting transgender athletes would give rise to men impersonating as women. [31] The USTA claimed that increasing experiments in “iron curtain countries” or nations competing with America are creating “athletic stars by means undreamed of” previously. [32] Simply put, the USTA associated transgender athletes with already widespread fears of communism throughout the Cold War era, alluding to the notion that transgender athletes were products of unnatural experimentation by enemy nations. Their argument thereby weaponized larger geopolitical tensions and exacerbated sociological out-group threat ideologies attributed to gender non-conforming communities.
The plaintiff’s surgeon, Dr. Roberto Granato, claimed the sex-reassignment operation, which removed testes, and female hormone therapy, which decreased male hormones, muscle mass, and muscle-to-fat ratio, made her hormonally a woman. [33] As her “muscle development, weight, height, and physique fit within the female norm” as a “six feet two inches…147 pounds” athlete, Dr. Granato thus claimed the plaintiff should be “allowed to compete” as a woman. [34] Additionally, Dr. John Money, a psychologist and practitioner at Johns Hopkins Medical School, claimed that Dr. Richards is a woman in terms of her internal and external sex organs as well as psychologically, somatically, socially, and endocrinologically. [35] Dr. Money also asserted that Dr. Richards did not have an unfair competitive advantage in terms of “muscle development, weight, height and physique” compared to cisgender female athletes. [36] Dr. Money further claimed that the Barr test is inaccurate, excluding those with chromosome variations who will thus fall out of the statistical average, such as with Klinefelter and Turner Syndromes or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and Testicular Feminization. [37] The court even heard from famed tennis player Billie Jean King, who claimed that the plaintiff “does not enjoy physical superiority or strength so as to have an advantage over women competitors in the sport of tennis" after playing together in a tournament and observing her performance in two others. [38] The court took all of these factors into consideration in its final decision.
IV. DECISION & APPLICATION
i. Decision
The state court determined the use of the Barr body test in the women’s singles of the US Open to be “grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable” criterion for sex determination implemented with the exclusive intent to block Dr. Richards from competing, which violated New York State Human Rights Law. [39] The court claimed that the defendants implemented the Barr test with the exclusive intent to stop Dr. Richards from competing, and the sole excuse for implementing this exam is to “prevent fraud” to obtain a competitive advantage. [40] However, Dr. Richards does not fall into this category as a man “masquerading” as a woman to gain a competitive advantage, as few successful male athletes in tennis are transgender, and there is “overwhelming medical evidence” she is female. [41] The fact that Dr. Richards, as a “successful physician, a husband and father,” underwent a sex reassignment surgery for her “own mental sanity” demonstrates that she is not the cisgender male seeking victory and reaping its economic benefits on unequal grounds as defendants may picture her to be. [42] Given that Dr. Richards is truly a transgender woman, the use of the Barr exam in this case was deemed discriminatory.
This conclusion did not eliminate the Barr examination, as it was still deemed a “recognized and acceptable tool for determining sex.” [43] However, it is insufficient when it stands alone as the only evaluation metric in cases like these where “circumstances warrant consideration of other factors.” [44] The court concluded that the plaintiff’s rights were thus violated. Dr. Richards was granted a preliminary injunction and permitted to qualify and participate in the United States Open as, in the plaintiff’s words, a “woman in the women's division.” [45]
ii. Aftermath
In response to this New York State Supreme Court decision, the American public evoked a wide range of responses. In the New York Times article “Reneé Richards Controversy: What Is a Woman?” written on September 5th, 1976, opinion writers’ reactions ranged from an open “Welcome Dr. Richards to our ranks” to outraged claims that the plaintiff was “not really a woman” and therefore should not legally be allowed to compete in the women’s division. [46] Dr. Richards herself claimed that “it does have major significance in pointing out that persons oppressed, regardless of where they come from, have recourse in the law and in the courts.” [47]
Regardless, this holding on the transgender athlete made shockwaves for tennis nationwide as the first case of its kind. Dr. Richards claimed that players “refused to play in events along with me, some had vocal objections, refused to shake hands, made disparaging comments, and one walked off the court midmatch” to protest her inclusion. [48] Yet, she played on tour for five years, began coaching in 1981, and returned to ophthalmology work in 1982. [49] After a long career of competitive tennis, Dr. Richards spoke out in a surprising turn of events in 2024. Dr. Richards stated that, through decades of personal experience and newfound research on transgender women in competitive sports, she came to the opposite conclusion that “male puberty disqualifies transgender women from the female category in sports.” [50] She claimed that current medical science demonstrates that “physical advantages” persist. [51] Her change in stance came with the nuance that puberty-blocking hormones may inhibit male puberty and thus allow a fair inclusion of transgender women into sports. [52] These arguments merit consideration in efforts to maintain equity and inclusion in competitive sports.
iii. Legal Application
This case was only cited a few times after the New York state court decision. As the legal opinion stated, Dr. Richards seemed to be an exception. In fact, the vast majority of court cases that drew from this court decision came with the turn of the 21st century, expanding throughout New York courts and other states like California, Kansas, and Maryland. [53] For example, in the 2005 New York Supreme Court case in Westchester County, Buffong v. Castle on the Hudson, a transgender plaintiff similarly sued “under New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 290 et seq.)” [54] Such cases are only expanding and growing increasingly visible in the public sphere, like with Gaines v. NCAA, a United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia case in 2025 for a Title IX court case involving transgender athletes. [55] Thus, although debates about transgender athletes had existed for many decades before, it wasn’t until recently that the controversy emerged at the forefront of the political and legal landscape.
On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments for two primary cases arising from the U.S. Court of Appeals level, deciding whether transgender athletes can compete in women’s and girls’ sports teams. [56] First, in Little v. Hecox, a transgender athlete named Lindsay Hecox, who was barred from track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, challenged Idaho state legislation banning transgender competitors in women’s and girls’ sports teams from elementary school to university. [57] Hecox requested to “dismiss the case as moot…after she moved to dismiss the case in lower court,” but Justices determined they would consider whether to dismiss the case later on in oral arguments. [58] She attempted to dismiss the case, and further stopped competing in women's sports to stop the issue from becoming a live controversy because of “her father’s passing and negative public scrutiny from certain quarters because of this litigation.” [59] Second, in West Virginia v. B. P. J., middle school student Becky Pepper-Jackson claimed that state legislation banning transgender competitors in women’s and girls’ sports teams from middle school through college constitutes sex-based discrimination. [60] These upcoming cases will be largely influential in determining how courts on all levels will grapple with sex discrimination and transgender women athletes in competitive sports.
IV. CONCLUSION
In Dr. Richards’s words, “the problem of what to do with prospective transgender athletes at scholastic, club, and professional levels, in many sports, is currently ongoing.” [61] Sweeping policies and executive actions, such as Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” impact the enormously diverse variety of individual cases. National sport tournament groups must not lose sight of the importance of implementing an equal playing field for all, accounting for both cisgender and transgender women athletes in competitive sports. However, they must also ensure that policies don’t inadvertently create novel inequalities for others amidst their efforts to include transgender athletes. Balancing the inclusion of gender non-conforming athletes with fairness in competitive sports remains a constant ideological battle in legal cases. In the unstable, divisive, and politically charged national landscape under the Trump administration, where transgender communities are increasingly marginalized, it is crucial now more than ever to comprehend past historical legal changes to move forward with legal decisions.
Endnotes
[1] The White House, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” The White House, January 21, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government.
[2] The White House, “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports,” The White House, February 5, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports.
[3] Amy Gelder and Lara Flath, “Ban on Transgender Women from Female Sports Is Challenged in Court,” Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, February 18, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/02/banon-transgender-women-from-female-sports-is-challenged-in-court.
[4] Richards v. United States Tennis Association, 400 N.Y.S. 713, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977)
[5] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 714
[6] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 714
[7] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 714
[8[ Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 714
[9] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 713-715
[10] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 715
[11] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 713
[12] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 717-718
[13] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 718
[14] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 715
[15] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 715
[16] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 715
[17] Supreme Court of the United States, “Brief Amici Curiae of Law & History Professors Filed,” Supremecourt.gov, July 3, 2019, https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-107.html.
[18] Doe v. State, Dept. of Public Welfare, 257 N.W.2d 816, 817
[19] Supreme Court of the United States, “Brief Amici Curiae of Law & History Professors Filed.”
[20] Supreme Court of the United States, “Brief Amici Curiae of Law & History Professors Filed.”
[21] Supreme Court of the United States, “Brief Amici Curiae of Law & History Professors Filed.”
[22] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 713
[23] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 713-714
[24] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[25] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[26] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 716
[27] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 716
[28] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 717
[29] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 717
[30] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 717
[31] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 716
[32] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 716
[33] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 719
[34] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 719
[35] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 720
[36] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 721
[37] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 720
[38] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 721
[39] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 721
[40] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[41] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[42] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[43] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[44] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 722
[45] Richards, 400 N.Y.S. 713, 714
[46] The New York Times, “Renee Richards Controversy: What Is a Woman?,” The New York Times, September 5, 1976, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1976/09/05/archives/renee-richards-controversy-what-is-awoman.html.
[47] Neil Amdur, “Renee Richards Ruled Eligible for U.S. Open,” The New York Times, August 17, 1977, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/17/archives/renee-richards-ruled-eligible-for-us-open-ruling-makesrenee.html.
[48] Wertheim, Jon. 2025. “Reneé Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis.” SI. Sports Illustrated. February 13, 2025. https://www.si.com/tennis/Reneé-richards-shares-the-gender-policy-recommendation-she-madeto-the-wta.
[49] Wertheim, “Reneé Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis.”
[50] Wertheim, “Reneé Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis.”
[51] Wertheim, “Reneé Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis.”
[52] Wertheim, “Reneé Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis.”
[53] See, eg., (G. B. v Lackner, 80 Cal App 3d 64, 145 Cal Rptr 555 [1978]); (In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan App 2d 92, 22 P3d 1086 [2001]); (In re Heilig, 372 Md 692, 816 A2d 68 [2003])
[54] Buffong v Castle on the Hudson, 824 N.Y.S.2d 752 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
[55] Scooby Axson, “Riley Gaines Transgender NCAA Lawsuit Partially Thrown Out, Title IX Claims Can Proceed,” USA TODAY, September 26, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2025/09/26/riley-gaines-lawsuit-ncaatitle-ix-claims-can-proceed-transgender/86366382007/.
[56] Howe, Amy. 2025. “Supreme Court Will Hear Cases in January on Transgender Athletes, Gun Rights, and Trump’s Firing of Fed Governor.” SCOTUSblog. November 12, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-in-january-on-transgender-athletes-gun-rightsand-trumps-firing-of-fed-governor/.
[57] Howe, “Supreme Court Will Hear Cases in January on Transgender Athletes, Gun Rights, and Trump’s Firing of Fed Governor.”
[58] Howe, “Supreme Court Will Hear Cases in January on Transgender Athletes, Gun Rights, and Trump’s Firing of Fed Governor.”
[59] Amy Howe, “Transgender Woman Urges Supreme Court to Drop Sports Case,” SCOTUSblog, September 5, 2025, https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/lindsay-hecox-asks-supreme-court-to-drop-sports-case/.
[60] Howe, “Supreme Court Will Hear Cases in January on Transgender Athletes, Gun Rights, and Trump’s Firing of Fed Governor.”
[61] Wertheim, “Reneé Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis.”