The dispute between JayCee Cooper and USA Powerlifting has reached a negotiated close after a higher court found the organization had engaged in discriminatory exclusion. The announcement, made on 28 April by the legal team that represented Cooper, follows an earlier unanimous ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court. That court determined that the organization’s actions ran afoul of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a law that protects individuals in contexts described under the statute as public accommodations. The settlement ends a case that put questions about membership rules, sex-based categories and access to sport under intense legal scrutiny.
Cooper, a well-known litigant in debates about transgender participation in sport, had sought entry to women’s powerlifting competitions after being denied. The initial exclusion arose when she was refused entry into events that the organization operates, a decision that Cooper challenged as unlawful discrimination. She later filed a formal civil claim, arguing that barring her from the women’s division violated state law. Litigation over the exclusion progressed over several years and drew attention to how sports bodies craft eligibility rules for athletes who are transgender women.
Court decision and settlement
In October 2026 the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that USA Powerlifting’s exclusion of transgender women from the women’s division amounted to discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court found that, at the time of Cooper’s application, the organization lacked a formal written policy yet nonetheless excluded transgender women from competition. Following that ruling, the parties reached a settlement announced on 28 April. In the agreement the organization acknowledged the high court’s decision and agreed to pay a gross sum to Cooper, while continuing to deny general liability or unlawful intent. Details of the financial terms remain private.
Legal reasoning and contested defenses
The state court’s opinion addressed two interlocking legal issues. First, the ruling concluded that the exclusion implicated protections under the Minnesota Human Rights Act in spaces the statute treats as public accommodations. Second, the court left open whether the organization could justify its exclusion under a legitimate business purpose defense, sending that question back for further consideration. The opinion recorded that USA Powerlifting had submitted substantial expert testimony suggesting a retained strength advantage for athletes assigned male at birth, evidence the court acknowledged while still finding discrimination in the exclusion.
Business purpose question
A crucial wrinkle in the litigation was whether the organization could show that its exclusion policy was reasonably necessary to achieve an important organizational objective. USA Powerlifting argued that rules based on biological sex preserved fair competition in strength sports, citing research and competition standards. Cooper’s team contested that exclusion served no required business mission. At a later procedural moment, Cooper’s lawyers indicated they would dismiss aspects of the case that could have produced a jury trial on the business-purpose issue, a move that helped clear the path to settlement and ultimately forestalled a jury presentation of expert evidence the organization had hoped to make.
Reactions and wider implications
Advocates for Cooper hailed the outcome as a reaffirmation of civil rights protections. The legal director for the representing organization emphasized that the group would continue to ensure that transgender Minnesotans can access sports, education, employment and health care without discrimination. USA Powerlifting issued a separate statement emphasizing its commitment to sex-based competition categories and saying the ruling left Minnesota out of alignment with some national and international policies. The case also unfolded against a broader landscape: many states and some international bodies have reassessed policies for transgender athletes, and roughly half of U.S. states have enacted laws restricting transgender women and girls from certain sports participation.
What comes next
With the settlement in place, the immediate litigation between Cooper and the organization is over, but the legal and policy debates continue. USA Powerlifting has said it will review how to operate in Minnesota going forward and has emphasized that this outcome does not alter its policy approach elsewhere. The organization had previously created an MX division intended to offer competition pathways for transgender and nonbinary athletes while retaining sex-based male and female divisions. Observers expect this case to remain influential as other sports bodies and courts consider how anti-discrimination laws interact with the governance of athletic competition. The precise settlement terms have not been released to the public.