A Maine attorney’s attempt to have a Department of Justice lawyer investigated for ethics violations in a transgender athlete lawsuit was firmly rejected by a federal judge.
At a Glance
- Attorney Randy Creswell filed a motion claiming DOJ lawyer Matthew Donnelly violated professional ethics by pursuing a lawsuit against Maine’s transgender athlete policies
- The Trump administration’s lawsuit challenges Maine’s policy allowing transgender females to compete in women’s sports, claiming Title IX violations
- Judge Stacey Neumann denied the request for special counsel, ruling that the DOJ’s legal arguments do not constitute discriminatory conduct
- Attorney General Pam Bondi has threatened similar actions against other states with transgender-inclusive policies
Ethics Challenge Rejected in Transgender Sports Case
A federal judge has denied a Maine attorney’s attempt to have a Department of Justice lawyer investigated for alleged ethics violations in a lawsuit challenging the state’s transgender athlete policies. Randy Creswell filed a motion accusing DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly of engaging in gender identity discrimination by pursuing the case against Maine’s policies, which allow transgender females to compete in women’s sports categories. The unusual legal maneuver sought to halt the federal government’s lawsuit by questioning the professional conduct of its attorneys.
Judge Stacey Neumann swiftly rejected the motion, concluding that appointing a special counsel was not warranted and no further action was necessary. The judge emphasized that professional conduct rules govern how lawyers make arguments, not the legal positions they endorse.
This ruling highlights the important distinction between advocacy of policy positions and making legal arguments under existing law, affirming that state courts cannot substantively restrain federal government lawyers making arguments under federal law.
Trump Administration Files Lawsuit to Ban Transgender Athletes from Women's Sports – Washington, April 16
The Trump administration has filed a civil lawsuit against the state of Maine, accusing it of failing to prohibit transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports.… pic.twitter.com/1oC2jvJFkP
— CSB News USA (@csbnewsus) April 16, 2025
Trump Administration’s Aggressive Legal Strategy
The ethics challenge arose from the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maine over policies allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. Filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawsuit claims that Maine’s policies violate Title IX, the federal law intended to prevent sex-based discrimination in education. The Justice Department’s legal position argues that allowing transgender females to compete in women’s sports categories undermines the law’s protections for biological females.
The administration has taken additional steps to pressure Maine, including threats to cut off federal funding to Maine’s public schools and lunch programs. These threats were temporarily blocked by a federal judge. In a separate action, the Justice Department withdrew $1.5 million in grants from Maine’s Corrections Department for housing a transgender woman in a women’s prison. Similar legal actions are reportedly being considered against Minnesota and California, which have comparable transgender-inclusive athletic policies.
Maine’s Defiant Response
Maine’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, anticipated the lawsuit and has expressed readiness to contest it in court. When informed of the impending legal challenge, Mills responded with a defiant “See you in court,” indicating the state’s commitment to defending its inclusive policies. The confrontation highlights the growing tension between federal enforcement of Title IX and states that have adopted policies accommodating transgender athletes.
The judge’s ruling in the ethics challenge clarifies an important legal boundary between advocacy and discrimination. Professional conduct rules in Maine prohibit discrimination and conduct prejudicial to justice, but they also explicitly allow for legitimate advocacy, even if it involves arguments that could be seen as discriminatory, as long as they are supported by nonfrivolous legal arguments. This distinction preserves attorneys’ ability to make controversial legal arguments without facing professional sanctions.
Broader Implications for Legal Advocacy
This case raises important questions about the boundaries of legal advocacy in politically charged cases. Creswell’s motion attempted to use professional conduct rules as a tool to challenge the government’s legal position on transgender athletes. Had it succeeded, it could have created a precedent allowing lawyers to be sanctioned for advancing controversial legal arguments on behalf of their clients. The court’s rejection preserves attorneys’ ability to make vigorous arguments even on divisive social issues.
The lawsuit against Maine continues as part of a broader push by the Trump administration to enforce a biological definition of sex in federal civil rights laws. With multiple states adopting policies similar to Maine’s, this case represents just one battleground in what promises to be an extended legal conflict over transgender rights and Title IX interpretations. The implications will extend far beyond Maine and could eventually reach the Supreme Court for final resolution.
