Pro-transgender Washington attorney general recuses himself from defending female-only sports ballot measure

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a staunch supporter of transgender causes, has appointed outside counsel to defend in his stead the girls’ sports ballot measure, passed by popular vote last week, against a lawsuit brought by transgender activists.

On Election Day, voters in Washington passed by a stunning 12-point margin Initiative 638, a measure that would prohibit biological boys from competing in certain school athletic programs “intended for female students only.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington jointly sued the state earlier this week on behalf of TransFamilies, a Seattle-based LGBT group, and seven parents of “transgender girls,” seeking to overturn the citizen-initiated state statute and prevent it from taking effect.

As attorney general, Brown was legally obligated to defend the will of voters in Jane Doe v. Washington.

But the Washington Democrat announced on Thursday that he is handing off the case to a private law firm, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, to represent the public’s interest in the legal battle.

WHY CONSERVATIVE TRANSGENDER BALLOT MEASURES PASSED AMID BLUE WAVE

As for the reason why he is stepping aside, Brown cited his own “extensive work defending the rights of transgender Washingtonians.”

“We have brought and won important cases against the federal government to protect access to vital healthcare services, and we have vigorously defended state laws that give transgender people equal protection under Washington law,” Brown said in a statement. “We will not and cannot abandon that work.”

By tapping BCLP to handle the defense’s case, Brown will avoid having to argue the gender-critical position himself on the matter of sex-separated school sports.

Brown’s duty as the state’s chief legal officer is to defend state laws, including voter-enacted measures, challenged in civil court.

In response to Brown’s recusal decision, Glenna Goldis, a lawyer and gay rights advocate, said that he is “shirking his legal obligation to defend I-638 so he can maintain plausible deniability about how ‘gender identity’ policies hurt girls.”

“Brown all but admits that in his statement: ‘We will not and cannot abandon that work’ of fighting for the transgender agenda,” Goldis wrote in an X post.

Surrounded by other Washington state officials in Seattle, Attorney General Nick Brown announces a federal lawsuit
challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to overhaul elections in the U.S., April 4, 2025. (AP Photo)

In his recusal announcement, Brown said that the enlistment of outside counsel to serve as “a special assistant attorney general” is common for attorneys general when they cannot handle a case themselves, “whether because of a conflict of interest, a need for specialized expertise, or simply because of workload.”

Goldis said none of Brown’s listed excuses aptly apply to whether it is appropriate for him to litigate Initiative 638. His motive, according to Goldis, is “I have an unpopular agenda that the voters have rejected and I want to keep pressing that agenda.”

“Brown doesn’t have a conflict of interest,” she countered. “He’s backing out because if he defended I-638, he’d have to present evidence that it protect[s] girls from harm. Then he could no longer argue in other cases ‘there is no evidence’ trans-inclusion harms girls.”

In November 2025, Brown signed an amicus brief telling the Supreme Court there is “no evidence” that allowing biological boys to compete against girls harms female athletes in any way.

BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE AT CRUX OF TRANSGENDER SPORTS CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

Brown had joined a coalition of other progressive attorneys general from blue states to support the transgender plaintiffs in the Supreme Court sports cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The coalition’s amicus brief claimed that, from what they had seen of their own transgender-inclusive sports policies, such practices do not deprive female competitors of equal athletic opportunities.

“Amici States’ experience further confirms that there is no evidence that any concrete harm will result from permitting transgender students like plaintiffs to participate in female athletics,” read the court filing, co-signed by Brown.

Goldis said if Brown were forced to defend Washington’s newly passed girls’ sports initiative, he would have had to use data to demonstrate that separating sports teams by biological sex is justified.

“After that, his office will never again be able to argue boys competing against girls are harmless,” Goldis said.

Brown’s office declined to comment, telling the Washington Examiner that his statement announcing the outside appointment will be his “only comment on the decision regarding pending litigation.”

“The firm’s attorneys have handled many important cases on behalf of the state previously,” Brown said of BCLP in Thursday’s press release. “I am confident that this approach will best ensure that I-638 is appropriately defended in a way that its supporters can have confidence in, while also allowing our office to continue our other important work defending transgender rights.”

Stressing that his “highest obligation is to Washingtonians,” Brown reiterated that he believes the arrangement “best respects their will.”

“My personal views do not dictate what laws get defended or the strength of that defense,” Brown said.

Brown routinely signs on to amicus briefs with blue state allies in support of challenges to transgender-related restrictions, many of them cases about access to school bathrooms policed on the basis of biological sex.

FAA’S MODERNIZATION PUSH FACES RENEWED SCRUTINY AFTER NATIONWIDE OUTAGE: WHAT TO KNOW

In Jane Doe v. Washington, Brown would have been going up against his former colleagues.

Prior to winning the race for attorney general in 2024, Brown worked as a partner at the Pacifica Law Group, which is representing the Washington Education Association, the largest teachers’ union in the state, as a co-plaintiff in the ballot measure lawsuit to keep boys in girls’ sports.

Share this article:

Facebook

Twitter