The Justice Department is suing the state of Maine for refusing to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender athletes from participating in school sports, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Wednesday.

DOJ’s lawsuit accuses the state of violating Title IX rules barring sex discrimination, arguing that girls and women are disadvantaged in sports and deprived of opportunities like scholarships when they must compete against natal males, an interpretation of the statute that reverses course from how the law was enforced under the Biden-Harris administration.

“We tried to get Maine to comply” before filing the complaint, Bondi said during a news conference. She added the department is asking the court to “have the titles return to the young women who rightfully won these sports” and may also retroactively pull federal funding to the state for refusing to comply with the ban in the past.

Earlier this year, the attorney general sent letters to Maine, California, and Minnesota warning the blue states that the department “does not tolerate state officials who ignore federal law.”

According to the Maine Principals’ Association, only two trans high school-aged girls are competing statewide this year. Conclusions from research on the athletic performance of trans athletes vis-a-vis their cisgender counterparts have been mixed.

Trump critics and LGBTQ advocates maintain that efforts to enforce the ban can facilitate invasive gender policing to settle questions about an individual athlete’s birth sex, which puts all girls and women at risk. Others believe determinations about eligibility should be made not by the federal government but by school districts, states, and athletics associations.

Bondi’s announcement marked the latest escalation of a months-long feud between Trump and Maine, which began in February when the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, declined to say she would enforce the ban.

Also on Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the findings from her department’s Title IX investigation into Maine schools — which, likewise, concerned their inclusion of trans student-athletes in competitive sports — was referred to DOJ.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department pulled $1.5 million in grants for Maine’s Department of Corrections because a trans woman was placed in a women’s correctional facility in violation of a different anti-trans executive order, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture paused the disbursement of funds supporting education programs in the state over its failure to comply with Title IX rules.

A federal court last week ordered USDA to unfreeze the money in a ruling that prohibits the agency from “terminating, freezing, or otherwise interfering with the state’s access to federal funds based on alleged Title IX violations without following the process required by federal statute.” 

The British Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled the legal definition of a woman is limited to “biological women” and does not include transgender women.

The Equality Act that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity took effect in 2010.

Scottish MPs in 2018 passed a bill that sought to increase the number of women on government boards. The Supreme Court ruling notes For Women Scotland — a “feminist voluntary organization which campaigns to strengthen women’s rights and children’s rights in Scotland” — challenged the Scottish government’s decision to include trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate in its definition of women when it implemented the quota.

Stonewall U.K., a British advocacy group, notes a Gender Recognition Certificate is “a document that allows some trans men and trans women to have the right gender on their birth certificate.”

“We conclude that the guidance issued by the Scottish government is incorrect,” reads the Supreme Court ruling. “A person with a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) in the female gender does not come within the definition of ‘woman’ for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA (Equality Act) 2010. That in turn means that the definition of ‘woman’ in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term ‘woman’ in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.”

The 88-page ruling says trans people “are protected by the indirect discrimination provisions” of the Equality Act, regardless of whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

“Transgender people are also protected from indirect discrimination where they are put at a particular disadvantage which they share with members of their biological sex,” it adds.

Susan Smith, co-founder of For Women Scotland, praised the decision.

“Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said, according to the BBC. “Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”

Author J.K. Rowling on X said it “took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court.”

“In winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK,” she added.

It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. @ForWomenScot, I’m so proud to know you 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💜🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💚🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🤍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 https://t.co/JEvcScVVGS

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) April 16, 2025

Advocacy groups in Scotland and across the U.K. said the ruling is a serious setback for trans rights.

“We are really shocked by today’s Supreme Court decision — which reverses 20 years of understanding on how the law recognizes trans men and women with Gender Recognition Certificates,” said Scottish Trans and the Equality Network in a statement posted to Instagram. “The judgment seems to have totally missed what matters to trans people — that we are able to live our lives, and be recognized, in line with who we truly are.”

Consortium, a network of more than 700 LGBTQ and intersex rights groups from across the U.K., in their own statement said it is “deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today’s Supreme Court ruling.”

“As LGBT+ organizations across the country, we stand in solidarity with trans, intersex and nonbinary folk as we navigate from here,” said Consortium.

The Supreme Court said its decision can be appealed.

D.C. police just after 1 a.m. on April 10 arrested two men for allegedly assaulting and robbing a gay man inside a CVS store at 1418 P St., N.W., according to a police report and charging documents filed in D.C. Superior Court.

The charging documents state that the alleged assault and robbery occurred a short time after the three men “exchanged words” at the gay bar Number 9, which is located across the street from the CVS.

The arrested men are identified in the charging documents as Marquel Jose Diaz, 27, of Northwest D.C., and Lorenzo Jesse Scafidi, 21, of Elizabeth City, N.C. An affidavit in support of the arrest for Diaz says Diaz and the victim “were previously in a relationship for a year.”

Court records show Diaz was charged with Simple Assault, Theft Second Degree, and Possession of a Controlled Substance. The court records show the controlled substance charge was filed by police after Diaz was found to be in possession of a powdered substance that tested positive for cocaine.

Scafidi was charged with Simple Assault and Theft Second Degree, the court records show.

The D.C. police report for the incident does not list it as a suspected hate crime. 

The court records show both men pleaded not guilty to the charges against them at a Superior Court arraignment on the day of their arrest on April 10. The records show they were released by a judge while awaiting trial with an order that they “stay away” from the victim. They are scheduled to return to court for a status hearing on May 21.

The separate police-filed affidavits in support of the arrests of both Diaz and Scafidi each state that the two men and the victim “exchanged words” inside the Number 9 bar. The two documents state that both men then entered the CVS store after the victim went to the store a short time earlier.

Scafidi “came into the CVS shortly after and entered the candy aisle and slammed Complainant 1 [the victim] to the ground causing Complainant 1’s phone to fall out of CP-1’s pocket,” one of the two affidavits says. It says Scafidi “again picked up CP-1 and slammed him to the ground.”

The affidavit in support of Diaz’s arrest says Diaz also followed the victim to the CVS store after words were exchanged at the bar. It says that after Scafidi allegedly knocked the victim down in the candy aisle Diaz picked up the victim’s phone, “swung on” the victim “while he was still on the ground,” and picked up the victim’s watch before he and Scafidi fled the scene.

Without saying why, the two arrest affidavits say Diaz and Scafidi returned to the scene and were arrested by police after the victim and at least one witness identified them as having assaulted and robbed the victim.

Attorneys representing the two arrested men did not respond to phone messages from the Washington Blade seeking comment and asking whether their clients dispute the allegations against them.

The victim also did not respond to attempts by the Blade to obtain a comment from him. The police report says the victim is a resident of Fairfax, Va.