A Colorado-based federal judge overseeing a lawsuit surrounding a transgender player’s inclusion on a college women’s volleyball team refused to remove himself from the case, after a group of women challenged his “preferred pronouns” rule.
The women are now trying to appeal that decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to an argument they filed Wednesday.
U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews filed an order late last month saying he would not recuse himself from the case of Slusser v. Mountain West Conference, after a handful of women — including three University of Wyoming volleyball players — accused him of harboring bias and infringing their speech, by issuing a “preferred pronouns” requirement.
The women sued the Mountain West Conference and the San Jose State University in November, over the inclusion of transgender player Blaire Fleming on the California university’s women’s volleyball team.
Crews’ rule required parties in his court to refer to people by their preferred pronouns. But Crews told the plaintiffs early in the case, at a Nov. 20 status conference, that he wouldn’t require them to call Fleming “she” in accordance with the rule. He only asked them to be professional and respectful when speaking about Fleming, according to the judge’s order.
“I do want to make clear, though, that the parties should not construe my use of she/her pronouns (for Fleming) as any indication that the Court has prejudged any issues in this case,” said Crews at the time.
Courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, use people’s preferred pronouns in court “out of courtesy and respect, not out of bias and prejudgment,” wrote the judge in his order.
Let Us Appeal
The women’s Wednesday counterargument asks Crews to let them appeal the issue, mid-case, to the 10th Circuit, which also oversees Wyoming.
Though Crews has been letting them call Fleming “he,” the preferred pronouns rule is still in effect, and it still has a “chilling effect” on speech in the courtroom, the women argued through their attorney Bill Bock.
And with the rule still in place, the women “remain at the mercy of the Court” on the pronouns usage issue, Bock wrote.
The attorney argued that even if it’s not being enforced, the rule is still unconstitutional.
“(The judge’s) response misses the mark,” Bock wrote. “The Court’s statements do not eliminate or address the constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs.”
Those constitutional claims assert that the rule bars certain people from speaking based on their viewpoint alone, that it places prior restraint on people’s speech and that it’s overbroad.
This case is ongoing.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
