What Wins Out? Lawsuit Challenging USOPC Policy Barring Transgender Athletes’ Participation Calls Intersection Between Executive Orders and State Law into Question

By: Sofia Lopez*                                                                        Posted: 02/10/2026

“Dinah Yukich is a woman who loves to fence.”[1]  This seemingly simple yet evocative sentiment introduced amateur and transgender fencer Dinah Yukich’s complaint against fencing tournament organizers and rule makers, including the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”), after they restricted her ability to compete in a fencing competition in Suffern, New York.[2]  After initiating her transition to womanhood in 2021, Yukich sought to return to competitive fencing in 2025 by attempting to register for a fencing event but was denied entry after USA Fencing (“USAF”) unilaterally changed Yukich’s sex identification back to male pursuant to its new policy.[3]  Yukich alleges that she made multiple appeals to tournament organizers to contest the decision but was redirected to other officials who merely cited USAF’s new policy.[4]  Now, Yukich has filed suit in New Jersey state court, primarily alleging violations of New York’s anti-discrimination law, in addition to seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.[5]  In a time when the rights of transgender athletes in the U.S. are more at stake than ever, USOPC’s pivotal decision to fall in line with President Trump’s executive order draws the question of whether such an order actually demands an “obligation to comply,” or if existing state anti-discrimination laws can prevail.[6]

President Trump’s Executive Orders & USOPC’s Response

On January 20, 2025, President Trump began his second term by signing an executive order instructing the federal government to define sex as only male or female on government-issued IDs.[7]  Shortly after this, the President issued another order on February 5, 2025, which prohibited the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports.[8]  The executive order threatened to rescind funding to programs that fail to bar transgender athletes’ participation in sports.[9]  As for enforcement, this order instructed the U.S. Secretary of State to use “all appropriate and available measures” to ensure that the International Olympic Committee decides eligibility for participation in women’s sports “according to sex and not gender identity or testosterone reduction.”[10]

While some sports organizations promptly changed their policies to bar or restrict transgender athletes in response to President Trump’s executive orders, USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland stated in April 2025 that the organization did not plan to decide eligibility criteria for transgender athletes ahead of the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, leaving the responsibility to each governing body instead.[11]  Yet, just a few months later, the USOPC quietly reversed its policy and ordered its fifty-four national governing bodies to rewrite their participation rules to align with President Trump’s executive orders.[12]  In a letter to its stakeholders, Hirshland and USOPC President Gene Sykes justified the policy change by stating that, as a federally chartered organization, USOPC “ha[s] an obligation to comply with federal expectations.”[13]  However, it is uncertain whether President Trump’s executive order actually binds the organization in the presence of potentially conflicting state laws.[14]

“Obligation” or Pressure to Comply? Conflict Between Executive Orders, Federal & State Laws

As a federally chartered nonprofit organization governed by the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act (“The Act”), the USOPC is subject to uniform federal laws and regulations and does not receive government appropriations for its operations, unlike in many other countries.[15]  Rather, Congress authorizes the organization to generate revenue through sponsorships, licensing agreements, and the sale of broadcast rights for sporting events.[16]  In the past, the federal government has provided financial support to the USOPC in times of economic strife and in years where the U.S. has hosted the Olympics to ensure the efficiency and success of cities’ infrastructure ahead of the Games.[17]

Therefore, despite increasing pressure to comply with President Trump’s executive order ahead of the 2028 Olympics and the administration’s legal guidance, there are several legal concerns that arise from the USOPC and its governing bodies adopting restrictive policies that bar transgender athletes from competition.[18]  Firstly, President Trump’s executive orders cannot substitute federal law to bind the USOPC but can only dictate agencies’ policymaking.[19]  Additionally, the USOPC’s policy reversal may conflict with a clause in the Act, which states that a National Governing Body (“NGB”) cannot have eligibility criteria "that are more restrictive than those of the appropriate international sports federation" that oversees its sport. [20]  Because the USOPC has now compelled its governing bodies to adopt this policy, the committee draws legal issues for the many American federations that follow rules set by international organizations.[21]

Secondly, the USOPC’s policy barring access to competition for transgender athletes may create conflict with state anti-discrimination laws that protect transgender athletic participation.[22]  In Yukich’s suit, she alleges that USAF’s policy violates New York anti-discrimination law.[23]  While the fencing competition required entrants to be members of the USAF to register, transgender athletes are allowed to compete in women’s events in New York.[24]  Importantly, the USAF policy acknowledges potential conflicts with state laws but merely states that “it is the responsibility of that event host(s) or individual(s) to make USA Fencing aware” with no avenue to resolve this glaring issue.[25]  So, while it is unclear whether this legal argument based in state law will succeed for professional athletes, it continues to prevail in cases concerning transgender protections for student athletes in the absence of federal legislation or a ruling issued by the Supreme Court.[26]

Transgender Athletes – Scapegoat for the Legal Stage

Despite making up less than one percent of the U.S. population, transgender people and their right to participate in various areas of life, especially in sports, are frequent targets of politicization and scrutiny.[27]  Conservative officials and politicians often portray the issue of transgender athletes’ participation as a fight for athletic fairness for cisgender women and a rally against unfair athletic advantages, despite a lack of scientific data supporting this assertion.[28]  By reversing its previous policy, the USOPC and now the USAF have forfeited their responsibilities to ensure the safety of its athletes and the future of young transgender people who strive to one day reach elite competition stages.[29]  Additionally, the USOPC’s offer of mental health services and USAF’s repeated acknowledgment of Yukich’s emotional struggles signal the organization’s awareness that the restrictive policy will likely cause mental health struggles for athletes whose only desire is to achieve athletic greatness and compete as authentically as they can.[30]  So, unless and until Congress passes legislation or the Supreme Court issues a decision on the participation of professional transgender athletes, state laws can and should be levied to protect transgender athletes in the wake of varied attacks against them.[31]

*Staff Writer, Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, J.D. Candidate, May 2027, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

[1] Complaint ¶ 1, Yukich v. Premier Fencing Club, No. MID–L–007245-25 (N.J. Super. Ct. Middlesex Cnty. Oct. 10, 2025) (stating opening line of Introduction section of Yukich’s complaint).

[2] See id. ¶ 10–11 (claiming USAF “implemented a bigoted policy” banning transgender women from competing in women’s event after it unilaterally changed gender markers from female to male).

[3] See Zach Powell, Transgender Fencer Suing USA Fencing, USOPC over Ban from Women’s Competitions, Athletic (Oct. 14, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6717204/2025/10/14/transgender-usa-fencing-usopc-ban-womens-competition/ (describing Yukich’s transition to becoming transgender as amateur fencer and how, prior to President Trump’s executive order, USOPC permitted Yukich to change her gender marker from male to female).

[4] See id. (“Yukich submitted a complaint to USA Fencing to dispute the ban, but a USAF attorney closed the complaint without a finding, citing USOPC’s transgender policy. In mid-August, Yukich contacted Azziz, organizer of Premier Challenge Regional Open Circuit, regarding her inability to register for the women’s events. She was directed to Daugherty of USA Fencing, who also reiterated the transgender policy.”)

[5] Complaint ¶¶ 63, 75 (arguing that because gender identity is protected status in New York, where Premier Challenge Regional Open Circuit was held, and in New Jersey, where the hosting Premier Fencing Club of Metuchen, New Jersey is based, USAF’s policy violates both NY and NJ state law).  While all but Count 8 alleges violation of New York state law, Yukich alleges in this count that all defendants engaged in civil conspiracy, also violating NJ state law. See id. ¶¶ 121–126 (alleging defendants had agreement to exclude Yukich from women’s fencing events at tournament and engaged in “series of overt acts of excluding [Yukich] in furtherance of the agreement”).

[6] See Jonathan Capriel, US Olympic Rule Banning Trans Women Spurs Fencer’s Suit, Law360 (Oct. 14, 2025, at 22:55 ET), https://www.law360.com/articles/2399237/us-olympic-rule-banning-trans-women-spurs-fencer-s-suit (describing state law challenges to President Trump’s executive order).  For further discussion of conflict between legal effect of President Trump’s executive orders, Ted Stevens Act Olympic & Amateur Sports Act, and New York anti-discrimination law, see infra notes 19–29 and accompanying text.

[7] See Exec. Order No. 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025) (arguing restriction to two biological sexes, not gender identity, in government is necessary to “defend women’s rights”).

[8] See Exec. Order No. 14201, 90 Fed. Reg. 9279 (Feb. 5, 2025) (barring transgender participation in female sports).

[9] See id. (stating federal government will “rescind all funds from educational programs” that allow transgender females to compete under Title IX).

[10] See id. (detailing enforcement authority for Secretary of State to restrict transgender athletes’ participation in any competition governed by International Olympic Committee).

[11] See Bryan Armen Graham, US Olympic Committee Sidesteps Transgender Athlete Policy amid LA28 Buildup, Guardian (Apr. 17, 2025, at 18:17 ET), https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/17/usopc-transgender-athlete-policy-new-white-house-order (reporting Hirschland stated “it wouldn’t be appropriate” to set any policy on transgender athlete eligibility ahead of 2028 L.A. Games, despite growing political pressure from Trump administration, and instead, referred to longstanding USOPC practice, stating “responsibility for athlete eligibility . . . falls to international federations in global events and national governing bodies (NGBs) in domestic competitions.”); see also Ted Stevens Act Olympic & Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. § 220523(5) (2018) (explaining authority of NGBs in domestic competitions is to establish procedures and eligibility criteria).

[12] See Transgender Athlete Participation in Sport, USOPC (July 21, 2025), https://www.usopc.org/diversity-equity-inclusion/transgender-athlete-participation-in-sport (detailing new policy barring transgender athlete participation and compelling its governing bodies to adopt its policy).

[13] See Rebecca Tauber, U.S. Olympic Officials Change Policy, Ban Transgender Women from Women’s Competitions, Athletic (July 22, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6509733/2025/07/22/usopc-olympics-transgender-policy/ (reporting how, in USOPC letter to its stakeholders, CEO and President stated that all national governing bodies are “required” to update their policies pursuant to executive order barring transgender athletes from competition).

[14] See S.F. Arts & Athletics v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 547 n.27 (1987) (“The [U.S. Olympic Committee] is an independent body, and nothing in its chartering statute gives the federal government the right to control that body or its officers.”).  For further discussion of conflict between President Trump’s executive order and state laws, see infra notes 19–29 and accompanying text.

[15] See Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. § 220502(a) (2018) (recognizing USOPC as federally chartered organization).

[16] See About the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee, USOPC, https://www.usopc.org/about-the-usopc (last visited Nov. 2, 2025) (explaining how USOPC is one of only national Olympic committees to be “entirely privately funded” through public and commercial partners); see also Ben Wilhelm, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47850, The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee: A Primer 16 (2023) (outlining USOPC’s 2022 Impact Report, which reported $172 million in sponsorship and licensing revenue and $127 million in broadcast revenue).

[17] See Wilhelm, supra note 16, at 17 (describing how Congress allocated funds towards Olympic venues, transportation, housing, security and other needs for U.S. host cities).

[18] For further discussion of legal issues raised by President Trump’s executive order, see infra notes 19–32 and accompanying text.

[19] See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 (establishing Congress’s power to create laws); U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (establishing Executive’s power to “take care that the [l]aws be faithfully executed” (emphasis added)).

[20] See Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. § 220522(15) (2018) (explaining parameters of authority for NGBs, specifically regarding eligibility criteria).

[21] See Eddie Pells, Trump Gave the USOPC Cover on Its Transgender Athlete Policy Change. It Could End up in Court Anyway, Associated Press (July 29, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/transgender-olympics-37f083b1269f4575f5548ac41e761d7d (discussing how some American federations follow rules set by international counterparts which do “not all have guidelines as strict as what Trump’s order calls for”).

[22] See N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 292(35), §296(2)(a) (McKinney 2025) (prohibiting discrimination based on “person’s actual or perceived gender-related identity, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth, including, but not limited to, the status of being transgender” and prohibiting discrimination of any manager of place of public accommodation to “refuse, withhold from or deny to such a person any of the accommodations . . . on account of . . . gender identity or expression”).  For further discussion on how USOPC’s policy may conflict with state laws, see infra notes 24–27 and accompanying text.

[23] Complaint ¶ 72, Yukich v. Premier Fencing Club, No. MID–L–007245-25 (N.J. Super. Ct. Middlesex Cnty. Oct. 10, 2025) (citing Exec. §§ 292(35), §296(2)(a)) (alleging fencing tournament organizers and rule makers violated New York’s anti-discrimination law, which protects gender identity as protected status and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations, including sports events).

[24] See Powell supra note 3 (describing conflict between USAF’s barring of transgender athletes and N.Y. state law protecting transgender women’s right to compete).

[25] See USA Fencing Transgender and Non-Binary Policy, USA Fencing (July 18, 2025), https://www.usafencing.org/transgender-and-nonbinary-policy (acknowledging potential conflict with state laws protecting transgender athletic competition).

[26] See Ben Horney, The Former D-I Soccer Player Turned Lawyer Taking on Trans Athlete Cases, Front Off. Sports (Jan. 30, 2026, at 10:06 ET), https://frontofficesports.com/the-former-d-i-soccer-player-turned-lawyer-taking-on-trans-athlete-cases/ (reporting on attorney Susie Cirilli’s representation of female transgender athletes by bringing public accommodation lawsuits where she advances alleged violation of state anti-discrimination laws); see also John Fritze & Devan Cole, Supreme Court Agrees to Review Bans on Transgender Athletes Joining Teams That Align with Their Gender Identity, CNN (July 3, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/politics/supreme-court-transgender-athletes (explaining Supreme Court’s granting cert to review transgender athlete bans in two cases).

[27] See Jody L. Herman & Andrew R. Flores, How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States? 2 (2025) (“Among U.S. adults, 0.8% (over 2.1 million people) identify as transgender.  Among youth aged 13 to 17 in the U.S., 3.3% (about 724,000 youth) identify as transgender.”).

[28] See Exec. Order No. 14201, 90 Fed. Reg. 9279 (Feb. 5, 2025) (barring transgender participation in female sports to “protect women’s sports”).

[29] See Rebecca Tauber, U.S. Olympic Officials Change Policy, Ban Transgender Women from Women’s Competitions, Athletic (July 22, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6509733/2025/07/22/usopc-olympics-transgender-policy/ (arguing policy reversal leaves transgender athletes “unprotected from humiliating sex-testing practices,” and now “subject to intrusive questioning and demands for traumatizing physical exams as they prove they are women enough to play”).

[30] See Powell supra note 3 (“Before [reversing athletes’ gender markers,] [USAF] staff personally contacted each affected member to explain the change, answer questions, and offer support resources through Endure Athletic Mental Fitness.”); see also Complaint ¶¶ 53–54, Yukich v. Premier Fencing Club, No. MID–L–007245-25 (N.J. Super. Ct. Middlesex Cnty. Oct. 10, 2025) (detailing USAF organizers’ repeated acknowledgement on how new policy has negatively impacted Yukich).

[31] For further discussion on how state law may prevail over USOPC’s policy pursuant to executive order, see supra notes 24–27 and accompanying text.