A New York state Supreme Court judge has ruled that a transgender sprinter's lawsuit against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute can move forward in a narrowed capacity.
As reported by the Times Union of Albany, Sadie Schreiner's lawsuit claims the school discriminated against her and violated New York state law by refusing to let her compete at an April 2025 meet.
According to Adam Shinder of the Times Union, Schreiner sued the school this past November, when the former Rochester Institute of Technology sprinter alleged that RPI violated the New York Human Rights Law when it barred her from competing in its "Under the Lights Meet" out of "fear" of reprisal from the U.S. Department of Education following President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14201, which was issued in February 2025.
Gender identity or expression is a protected status under New York Executive Law.
Judge Richard McNally ruled last week in state Supreme Court in Rensselaer County that RPI did not prove its assertion that President Donald Trump's February 2025 executive order threatening to rescind funds from educational institutions that permit transgender athletes to compete in women's sporting events preempts New York's statute against unlawful discriminatory practices.
"Executive Order 14201 is not a statute, it is not a regulation, and it does not concern foreign policy," McNally wrote in his decision. "As such, Executive Order 14201 does not preempt state law."
Schreiner's attorney, Susie Cirilli, agreed with the judge's assessment, per Shinder's reporting.
"The executive order is not the law, and the order from the court is pretty clear on that," Cirilli said in an interview with the Times Union. "So, entities cannot rely on Executive Order 14201 to discriminate against transgender women, and they cannot rely on Executive Order 14201 to break state law."
In a statement to the Times Union, RPI said it "respects the court's decision. We are unable to comment further on ongoing litigation."
McNally did dismiss Schreiner's claim that RPI discriminated against the runner by denying her use of "public accommodation" when it blocked her entry into the meet, as well as a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Shinder reported.
