Judge Sykes rejects school’s motion to disqualify herself in transgender athlete case

California Central District Judge Sunshine Sykes will remain in charge of the Martin Luther King High School transgender athlete case, she ruled June 26. The two plaintiffs in the lawsuit, high school student athletes represented by their parents, claim that the participation of a transgender athlete on the varsity cross country race violates both the Due Process Clause and Title IX. Because they are underage, Inland Empire Law Weekly will not name the plaintiffs, or the athlete discussed in the complaint.

Three of the suits’ defendants, the Riverside Unified School District, MLK High Principal Leann Iacuone and MLK High Assistant Principal/Athletic Director Amanda Chann, asked Sykes to 

recuse herself from the case on May 16. The case’s other two defendants, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and Attorney General Rob Bonta, wrote in a separate filing that disqualification is not warranted.

The movants claim that Sykes’ impartiality might reasonably be questioned because Sykes sits as the co-chair of the RUSD’s Native American Parent Advisory Council (NAPAC), which uses district facilities. 

“Regardless of which way this Court would rule on motions filed by the Parties, the impartiality of Judge Sykes may be questioned by those that oppose or support transgender inclusion in athletic teams consistent with their gender identity. Moreover, Judge Sykes continued handling of this matter potentially places the District in a challenging position. When contemplating requests from NAPAC, the District may be faced with questions about any impact or import the case may have on the District’s response to requests for aide (sic). The District should not be placed in such a position,” the motion says.

The opinions of people who oppose or support either side of a dispute are irrelevant to the law that dictates the recusal of federal judges, Sykes ruled. That law explicitly says that volunteering in an educational organization does not constitute a financial interest, Sykes wrote. Further, the NAPAC has not commented on the case, or on the inclusion of transgender athletes.

“There is no allegation I have ever presented on or spoken with the Board regarding the issues of athletic policy and inclusion of transgender athletes present in this case. The only connection is that the District is being sued, and I live in the District and serve on an advisory committee of other Native American parents. As such, a reasonable person assessing this case would not question my impartiality,” Sykes wrote.

The movants also worried that Sykes’ position as co-chair of NAPAC would incentivize her to minimize the cost of litigation for the school district.

“District resources are a finite resource: for every dollar spent in litigation or on any award that may be granted to Plaintiff, one less dollar is available to support Native American students, and others ability to thrive academically and celebrate their cultural heritage within the educational system,” the motion said.

Sykes ruled that this concern runs counter to judicial precedent.

“This hypothetical issue—that a person serving an educational institution in a volunteer capacity and receiving some incidental resources (classroom space, etc.)—would apply in the litany of cases where this Circuit and courts around the country have held that recusal is not warranted. To start, this Circuit has held that there is no appearance of impropriety when a judge serves on a voluntary advisory board of a school, such as an “alumni board,” and hears cases where that same school is a party—so long as the role “does not create a fiduciary interest in pending litigation,” Sykes wrote.

The movants also mention Sykes’ attendance at a Feb. 6 RUSD board meeting, at which the transgender athlete mentioned in the complaint gave public comment.

The motion said that Sykes’ attendance at board meetings would make her privy to knowledge that normally would only be brought before the court via declarations or sworn testimony.

Sykes wrote that information learned at public meetings does not merit recusal.

Sykes’ ruling further disclosed that she has two daughters who attend school in the district, but do not attend MLK High.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, calling it speculative and untimely. Their reply said the filing of the motion one week before a May 16 hearing to dismiss makes it seem like the school district filed the motion to delay the hearing. The motion to dismiss was postponed to July 11.

“it appears that NAPAC focuses on supporting Native American students’ academic and cultural needs, which is unrelated to this case’s issues of transgender participation in athletics and student expression,” their brief reads.

Milton E. Foster III of Corona’s Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost filed the recusal motion. 

Read the motion here.

Read Sykes’ ruling here.