Seattle Public Schools can’t balance its books, but it can apparently afford to challenge Washington voters in court. The Seattle School Board voted unanimously on Monday night to authorize the district to hire lawyers and take legal action against Initiative 638, the voter-approved law that bars boys from girls’ sports.
Seattle School Board has voted to take legal action against I-638 days after voters passed it.
The headline reads: Broke Seattle school district with $87 million deficit votes to spend big suing voters over girls’ sports law.
ADF attorney Matt Sharp says the district ignores what the law says.
Be informed, not misled.
The special meeting came six days after I-638 passed with 56.6% of the vote. Resolution No. 2026/27-11 grants that authority to Seattle Superintendent Ben Shuldiner, who called the district “structurally insolvent” in June as it faced an $87 million deficit.
Get this: 56% of WA voted for I-638. Seattle Schools and the ACLU Want It GONE.
So do a number of legislators in Olympia.
Our responsibility, according to School Board President Gina Topp.
“Our responsibility as a school board is to uphold the law and protect the students and families we serve,” Seattle School Board President Gina Topp said in a statement. “When a new law raises serious questions about how it interacts with existing laws and constitutional protections, we have a responsibility to seek clarity from the courts. This resolution gives the district the ability to seek appropriate legal action so we can meet our obligations to our students.
The board argued that the initiative could subject girls to scrutiny, verification, and privacy intrusions. It also said implementing the measure could create legal, operational, financial, and administrative burdens for public schools.
“Washington has important laws that protect student privacy, guarantee equal access to educational opportunities, and ensure students are treated fairly,” Seattle School Board member-at-large Joe Mizrahi said in a statement. “These laws reflect values our communities have fought for and overwhelmingly support.
"The communities" he's talking about are primarily the leftist groups in the public school systems, the ACLU, and the LGBTQIA, etc.
Do girls get "equal access" under current policies and laws designed to advance the LGBTQIA movement...particularly the "trans" movement?
"As Board Directors, we take an oath to uphold them,” Mizrahi continued. “Right now, we don’t see a way to implement Initiative 638 without violating those vital protections. We aren’t willing to simply disregard our other legal obligations, and that’s why we’re asking the courts to help resolve this conflict.”
Translated, that means they are looking to the courts to side with them so they can continue as is regarding allowing boys to compete against girls. Sometimes severely injuring the girls.
Seattle's KOMO News said, "Those who support the initiative claim the issue isn't about gender identity, but fairness."
"It should never have come to this," I-638 supporter Amy Sousa stated. "It should never have come to a situation where any males were allowed to participate in the female category."
Sousa and others were part of a short outburst following the Monday vote.
"Justice delayed is justice denied! Who will listen to those girls?" Sousa said.
Opponents argue the sex verification requirements undermine student privacy and dignity.
The board previously opposed I-638 in a resolution adopted Sept. 23. Monday’s resolution reaffirmed that position and raised concerns about the initiative’s potential impact on student privacy, equal treatment, and access to school athletics.
Matt Sharp, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, dismissed the board’s argument.
"When you look at these laws, again, 27 states have passed these laws. We now have Washington and Colorado doing it through ballot measures. These laws simply say that males, no matter how they identify, are not eligible for a female team. So, if a male identifies as a boy, identifies as a girl, identifies as non-binary, that’s irrelevant. All that matters is his biological sex,” he said.
Sharp pointed to challenges involving Idaho and West Virginia, saying the Supreme Court had rejected the same arguments.
“The Supreme Court earlier this year rejected those arguments and said that these don’t violate equal protection. In fact, they are consistent with the Constitution. They’re consistent with Title IX,” Sharp noted.
And who gets the bill for all this?
That's right. The taxpayers.
Sharp warned that litigation could cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“You’re looking at hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars between the attorneys’ fees, legal experts that they’re going to hire, and just this, you know, dragging on through the court system,” he said. “At a moment like you said, when these schools are facing budget shortages, the easy option is to stand with your girls, stand with state law, stand for fairness, stand for equal opportunities for young women.”
Takeaway
ADF hopes Attorney General Nick Brown will defend the law, but it is exploring ways to intervene rather than relying on him alone.
“So while we do hope the attorney general does the right thing. We’re also looking for ways of how we can step into this fight and help to defend this law, to help defend the will of the people of Washington State,” Sharp added.
The board has not said when it plans to file its legal challenge.
I'll keep you posted.
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.