Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Colorado’s recently amended anti-discrimination law, arguing that the legislation violates the First Amendment rights of an athletic apparel company dedicated to women’s sports advocacy. The case represents the latest constitutional challenge to state-level gender identity protections and highlights the ongoing tension between anti-discrimination statutes and free speech claims.
The lawsuit, XX-XY Athletics v. Sullivan, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of XX-XY Athletics, a Denver-based company founded by former national gymnastics champion Jennifer Sey. The company explicitly markets itself as “the only athletic brand to stand up for women’s sports” and maintains that biological sex differences should determine athletic competition categories.
Legal Framework and Constitutional Claims
Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed House Bill 1312 into law on May 16, 2025, amending the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to expand protections for transgender individuals. The legislation defines “gender expression” to include “chosen name” and “how an individual chooses to be addressed,” extending these protections to public accommodations and advertising.
Under the new law, “businesses like XX-XY Athletics [are required] to address male customers who identify as female as females and also requires businesses to avoid any statement or advertisement that indicates customers are ‘unwelcome’ based on their gender expression and chosen name.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, marriage and family, and the sanctity of life. Alliance Defending Freedom contends this requirement violates the company’s constitutional rights because “the law allows any person who perceives discrimination to directly file a complaint in a district court, launching a burdensome investigation process that can lead to a cease-and-desist order.” The potential penalties include fines up to $3,500 per violation and criminal sanctions.
ADF Senior Counsel Hal Frampton characterized the legislation as governmental overreach, stating that “the law makes it illegal for [XX-XY] to use biologically accurate language with customers and prospective customers in their advertising and with members of the general public.”
Precedential Context and Strategic Implications
This lawsuit represents the second constitutional challenge to House Bill 1312. Earlier this month, several organizations including Defending Education, the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, and a western Colorado dermatologist filed a separate lawsuit making similar First Amendment claims.
Alliance Defending Freedom brings significant Supreme Court experience to this challenge. The organization has prevailed in multiple cases against Colorado’s anti-discrimination enforcement, including Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Both cases established precedents limiting state authority to compel speech that conflicts with religious or ideological beliefs.
Frampton referenced this litigation history, noting that “it’s unfortunate that on the heels of some of these other cases, that Colorado would choose to enact another law that infringes on free speech rights.”
Legislative Intent and Political Opposition
Democratic state Senator Faith Winter, a primary sponsor of the legislation, defended the measure during legislative debates, emphasizing that enforcement requires demonstrable intent to cause harm. “This isn’t if someone shows up at your workplace and you call them the wrong name or misgender them. There has to be intentionality to cause harm,” Winter explained during the legislative process.
The law underwent significant modifications during consideration, with LGBTQ advocacy groups expressing concerns about constitutional vulnerability. Legislators removed provisions that would have made publishing materials that misgender or deadname transgender individuals unlawful, attempting to narrow the scope of potential speech restrictions.
XX-XY Athletics operates through online advertising and pop-up events within Colorado, regularly using what the company describes as “biologically accurate language” when referring to male and female athletes. The company’s business model centers on advocacy for sex-segregated athletic competition, arguing that “males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls.”
Alliance Defending Freedom’s challenge seeks to establish that Colorado cannot constitutionally require businesses to adopt specific terminology regarding gender identity when that language conflicts with their core message. The organization argues that the law “coerces the company to speak against its principles and alter the meaning of its core message.”
The outcome of this litigation could significantly impact how states balance anti-discrimination protections with First Amendment guarantees, particularly regarding compelled speech in commercial contexts. Given Alliance Defending Freedom’s established track record before the Supreme Court and Colorado’s history of unsuccessful defenses in similar cases, this challenge represents a significant test of state authority to regulate speech in service of anti-discrimination objectives.
