Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown disclosed on Monday that his office will retain the national law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner to provide legal representation for Initiative 638. The measure, approved by voters last year, permits athletes to compete on teams that align with their gender identity, a policy that many parents and faith‑based organizations argue undermines fairness in girls’ sports.
Why an outside firm?
Brown explained that the decision to bring in an external counsel was driven by the complexity of the upcoming litigation. The Attorney General’s Office, which employs roughly 2,000 staff members, including 800 attorneys, will still oversee the case, but the firm will handle day‑to‑day courtroom strategy. “We want the strongest possible defense for the will of Washington voters,” Brown said in a press release.
Critics question the firm’s history
Opponents quickly highlighted Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s prior work on a high‑profile case in Missouri, where the firm provided pro‑bono representation to defend a law that barred gender‑affirming medical procedures for minors. The Missouri Free Press, a conservative outlet, noted that the firm’s involvement in that case suggests a partisan stance that conflicts with the interests of Washington families who support traditional athletics.
Family and faith groups voice concern
Several Washington‑based parent‑rights organizations, including the Washington Family Alliance, issued statements condemning the hiring. “We trusted the Attorney General to protect the integrity of girls’ sports, not to outsource the defense to a firm that has previously fought for policies that endanger our children,” said alliance spokesperson Rebecca Turner. Turner emphasized that the measure threatens the safety and fairness of female athletes.
Administration’s response
Brown’s office defended the choice, noting that the firm’s experience with complex civil rights litigation is valuable. “The firm’s track record in defending constitutional rights is precisely why we engaged them,” the Attorney General’s office said. The statement also asserted that the lawsuit will focus on upholding the voter‑approved initiative, not on any broader cultural agenda.
What’s at stake?
If the courts ultimately strike down I‑638, Washington could see a reversal of the policy that currently allows transgender athletes to compete in accordance with their gender identity. Supporters argue the law promotes inclusion and protects the rights of transgender youth, while opponents claim it creates an uneven playing field and undermines Title IX protections for biological females.
Next steps
The case is expected to be filed in the Washington State Supreme Court later this month. Both sides are preparing amicus briefs, and the litigation is likely to draw national attention as other states grapple with similar legislation.
Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.
