Fairness in Sports for College Athletes
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Bill Summary - 25LSO-0406 Bill No.: SF0044 Effective: 7/1/2025 LSO No.: 25LSO-0406 Enrolled Act No.: SEA No. 0094 Chapter No.: 144 Prime Sponsor: Schuler Catch Title: Fairness in sports-intercollegiate athletics. Has Report: No Subject: Requiring college students to compete in athletics based on biological sex. Summary/Major Elements: In 2023, the Legislature enacted a law that requires students at Wyoming schools in grades 7-12 to compete in interscholastic athletic activities based on the student's biological sex. This act extends that requirement to students at the University of Wyoming and each Wyoming community college. Students at these institutions must compete in intercollegiate athletic competitions based on the student's biological sex based on the sex listed on the student's official birth certificate issued at or near the time of birth. This act provides that female students may compete in athletics for male students if a corresponding athletic competition or activity is not offered or available for females. The act establishes a civil cause of action against an educational institution for violating this act and authorizes damages up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) together with the ability to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The act requires the University of Wyoming and the Wyoming Community College Commission to promulgate rules to implement this act, including rules to comply with state and federal confidentiality requirements. The above summary is not an official publication of the Wyoming Legislature and is not an official statement of legislative intent. While the Legislative Service Office endeavored to provide accurate information in this summary, it should not be relied upon as a comprehensive abstract of the bill.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 5, 8:07 AM
D · S09
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes concurrence because the new definitions for male and female are logistically unenforceable, making it difficult for institutions to determine compliance.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because the added definitions create logistical problems that make enforcement impossible for athletic directors and coaches.
R · S25
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it is unfair, causes harm rather than help, and fails to reflect reality in a non-binary world.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe the definitions provide long-term guidance and reflect common sense regarding a binary world of male or female.
R · S23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe the phrase 'will have' in the definition creates a loophole that contradicts the intent of the legislation.
R · S15
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it prevents males from competing with females at the collegiate level, ensuring a fair and safe playing field that remains protected even if future administrations change executive orders.
R · H57
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that current definitions are vague, forcing courts to decide gender eligibility or requiring invasive medical examinations like internal exams and ultrasounds. She proposes using birth certificates as a less invasive alternative because they can be subpoenaed to reveal original data without physical intrusion.
D · H23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues the amendment is unnecessary because existing provisions already allow starting with birth certificates, and adding 'original' creates confusion rather than clarity.
R · H30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment by pointing out that in eight states, parents can mark 'X' or choose other options on birth certificates, making them an unsolvable method for determining gender eligibility.
R · S04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because she believes it authorizes unlimited taxpayer dollars for out-of-state lawyers rather than providing relief to victims. She argues that direct damages are necessary for players who suffer financial loss, such as forfeiting scholarships.
R · S22
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that the current bill's damage cap is too low to cover legal costs, leaving athletes without a viable remedy. He supports his amendment because it allows for attorney fees as an enforcement tool and includes provisions for universities to recover fees if claims are frivolous.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
5 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
7 stored
The amendment removes a specific part of the bill that was added by the House standing committee and replaces the word 'official' with 'original'.
The amendment adds a new definition for 'individual sport' in the bill.
The amendment adds definitions for 'female' and 'male' based on reproductive systems, restricts female-only athletic competition participation by male students, and allows legal action against educational institutions that violate these rules.
The amendment adds a provision that allows educational institutions to discipline students or employees who make false reports about violations of the bill's rules.
The amendment removes a previous committee amendment and adds new language allowing individuals to seek legal action against educational institutions for violating the bill’s requirements, with potential for financial compensation.
The amendment adds a new provision to limit the legal action and financial liability of educational institutions under the bill.
The amendment adds the word 'intercollegiate' to specify that students at the University of Wyoming and Wyoming community colleges must compete in intercollegiate athletic competitions based on their biological sex.