Nick Brown must defend Washington’s girls’ sports law

*A promise to defend Initiative 638 needs named lawyers, conflict safeguards and a commitment to fight for its December start. *

Attorney General Nick Brown must defend the girls’ sports protections Washington voters approved in Initiative 638. The measure requires verification of a student’s sex at birth before participation in girls’ sports¹. Families deserve a defense committed to preserving that boundary.

On Nov. 10, 2026, Jackson Thompson reported that Washington’s attorney general’s office had told him it would defend the ballot measure after the ACLU sued to block it. “When a new law is passed by the people or the Legislature, our role is to ensure it is defended regardless of our personal views about the policy. We will review court filings as they come and discuss next steps,” the office told OutKick.

That commitment matters because the attorney general’s office is responsible for defending voter-backed initiatives¹. OutKick reported that Brown’s office did not identify who would lead the defense or say whether it had evaluated recusal or screening measures. Brown’s record makes those questions urgent. On Oct. 31, 2025, he led a coalition urging the Eighth Circuit to deny an emergency injunction that would have barred transgender students from most girls’ sports in Minnesota. Brown said, “Equal access to participation in sports is important to kids’ wellbeing, both emotionally and physically, and barring kids from school athletics because of their gender identity perpetuates the kind of discrimination our state has long sought to abolish.” OutKick reported that Pacifica Law Group, where Brown was a partner from 2017 to 2021 and returned in June 2023, represents the Washington Education Association in the challenge. Transparency USA says the union endorsed Brown’s 2024 campaign, and The Spokesman-Review reported, citing Public Disclosure Commission information, that the union’s PAC was among his donors. The lawsuit was filed Nov. 9 in King County Superior Court by the ACLU of Washington, Legal Voice and Pacifica; plaintiffs include TransFamilies, the WEA and parents of students who play girls’ sports. The complaint alleges violations of Washington’s privacy protections, Equal Rights Amendment, education clause and article II, section 37. Parents need to know who will carry it out.

Brown backed the policy challengers seek

That demand for accountability starts with Brown’s own record. Brown led a coalition of attorneys general in support of Minnesota’s policy allowing students to compete according to gender identity.

Brown’s policy director, Enoka Herat, previously served as the ACLU of Washington’s policing and immigration policy program director².

Brown must now defend the boundary he previously opposed, against a challenge involving people and institutions connected to his career. Families should not have to take the independence of that defense on faith.

The office has not named its defense team

Those connections make the unanswered staffing questions important. OutKick reports that the office was asked about the connections involving the lawsuit and how the defense would be handled. Asked follow-up questions, the office replied: “We’re discussing next steps and do not have more to add to the previous comment at this time.”²

Brown should name the responsible attorneys and explain how his office will assess and handle connections to the plaintiffs. Anyone whose involvement presents a conflict should be screened out of defense decisions. These are concrete safeguards, not a demand that public lawyers share every voter’s politics. Parents need identifiable officials they can hold accountable for protecting their daughters’ teams.

The lawsuit seeks to block girls’ protections

The Washington State Standard identifies TransFamilies as a nonprofit plaintiff.

Writer Benjamin Ryan posted the complaint’s four constitutional arguments: verification violates privacy; imposing it on girls but not boys violates equal rights; that unequal requirement violates the education guarantee; and the initiative changes existing statutory rights without setting out those changes³.

Verification deserves a direct legal answer, not evasion. Let’s Go Washington, the organization behind the initiative, argues that existing sports physicals could satisfy the medical-verification requirement². Brown’s lawyers should defend the actual requirement and its purpose: maintaining a girls’ category based on sex. The challengers’ objections should not become the state’s excuse to abandon that protection.

Girls are counting on the December start

The immediate fight is whether that protection begins on schedule. The lawsuit seeks to block the law before its scheduled start.

Brown should fight to preserve that start, not merely promise that someone in his office will review the case. A credible defense requires preparation, independence and a clear commitment to the law’s sex-based rule.

If Brown cannot deliver that defense, he should hand it to counsel who will. Girls should not lose their protections while officials discuss their next steps. Name the lawyers, establish the safeguards and fight to let the law take effect.

Sources

1. Parents, groups sue over transgender student-athletes initiative • Washington State Standard
2. Washington AG's office indicates it will defend girls' sports ballot measure after ACLU sues to block it | OutKick
3. @benryanwriter on X, 2026-11-11: The lawsuit seeking to overturn the Washington state ballot initiative that restricts girls' sports to those born female asserts that it violates the state constitution in four ways. The suit reads: First, the Initiative violates the right to privacy under, 2026-11-11