UPDATE 06/25/25: Academy D-20’s board of education voted unanimously to direct the district to draft and implement a policy classifying access to locker rooms, restrooms, and athletic participation as being based on biological sex on June 17. The board then voted to join School District 49’s lawsuit against Colorado’s attorney general, civil rights division and CHSAA on June 19.

Momentum is building to codify biological distinctions in Colorado school athletics, as the Pikes Peak region’s largest districts may soon come together in a legal battle against the state.

Following School District 49’s lead, Colorado Springs District 11’s board of education passed a new policy specifying athletic participation based on biological sex during a special meeting Wednesday night, while Academy D-20’s board began talks to do the same the following night.

Because the new policy JBA-Preserving Fairness and Safety in Sports, as it reads, conflicts with both state laws and Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) bylaws, the board also agreed to join D-49’s lawsuit against Colorado’s attorney general, civil rights division and the association.

The lawsuit “School District 49 v. Sullivan et al.” alleges that current CHSAA bylaws and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) discriminate against female student athletes by allowing biological males who identify as female to compete against them.

CHSSA’s current equity code “recognizes the right of transgender student-athletes to participate in interscholastic activities free from unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identification,” while C.R.S. 24-34-601 prohibits educational institutions from denying someone “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” because of their sex, gender identity or gender expression.

The D-11 board’s rationale for joining the lawsuit was both to preserve the fairness and safety for female athletes and to avoid any separate litigation against the school district.

Following the meeting, D-49 Superintendent Peter Hilts applauded the D-11 board’s decision “to ensure biological females have the opportunities they are guaranteed by Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

“Female athletes deserve to have the same opportunity to practice, compete, win, and earn scholarships as their male counterparts without those opportunities being stolen from them by biological males,” Hilts said in a statement to The Gazette.

“The conflicting laws implemented in Colorado not only threaten opportunity and the safety of our female student-athletes, but put federal funding for our district at risk following President (Donald) Trump’s recent Executive Orders on boys in girls’ sports.

“Women deserve the same opportunities to pursue their athletic dreams as men and I am confident our lawsuit will preserve that opportunity for future generations of female student athletes in Colorado.”

Just north of D-11, Academy D-20’s board of education held its regular meeting Thursday night, where members discussed adopting their own JBA policy and joining D-49’s lawsuit in an executive session. A special board meeting is scheduled June 17, when they will discuss and potentially take action on the two topics.

The actions by El Paso County’s three largest school districts come after symbolic gestures opposing both the state and CHSAA on the matter of separating athletics on the basis of sex. In April, a letter individually signed by more than 60 school board members urged CHSAA to update its bylaws similar to the JBA policies.

Among its signees were Hilts, board members from D-49, D-11, D-20, Widefield D-3 and Woodland Park RE-2, and local charter school directors and board members.

While Woodland Park’s school board passed a resolution that separates students using restrooms and locker rooms and participating in sports based on biological sex in January, it has not discussed joining the lawsuit to date. D-3 board members have previously come under fire for alleged comments against trans students, but a JBA policy nor joining the lawsuit has been discussed at a board meeting.

LGBTQ+ advocates have attended each board meeting where the JBA policies were discussed and voted on. They’ve repeatedly voiced their opposition to the policies, saying they target transgender students and embolden harm against them.

Alie Ehrensaft, program manager for the LGBTQ+ support nonprofit Inside Out Youth Services and former teacher, coach and student athlete, said at the D-11 board meeting that the policies also undermine the abilities of biologically female athletes.

“We will always face players that are bigger, stronger or faster than we are, and you want to know what? That makes us stronger and faster and more strategic,” she told the board. “A person’s gender doesn’t change their ability as a competitor; our abilities change how we compete.”

Julie Ott, D-11 board director, opposed both passing the new policy and the district pursuing the new lawsuit, saying that they, as a board, haven’t received sufficient legal council about the lawsuit or what it would cost the district in terms of time and resources.

“This does not help with academic achievement, this does not help [any of] our priorities [like] student outcomes,” she told her fellow board members. “You are directing money to a vague lawsuit with very uncertain outcomes.”

Jason Jorgenson, board secretary who proposed the policy and joining the lawsuit last month, said he has been speaking with the legal counsel involved in the lawsuit who told him the total cost would be between $500,000 and $1 million over the coming years, which would be made much more reasonable if multiple plaintiffs joined, and that they were on a limited timeline for a decision.

He added that there would be limited staff commitments to the district because they would be partnering with outside counsel.

“So, we’re literally joining the lawsuit and then we’re letting legal counsel handle all of the processes and purposes of this because we’re fighting for the policy that we just voted on,” he said.

Other board members agreed that they should be provided with more information before ultimately agreeing to proceed joining the lawsuit. Ott was the only board member to disagree.