# Raymond Gruender *United States circuit judge who sat in 2026 on an Eighth Circuit panel in a Minnesota Title IX appeal and on a three-judge district court in a Title VII suit against Minnesota.* Raymond W. Gruender is a United States circuit judge who appears in two 2026 federal matters involving [[Minnesota]].[^2] He sat with Judges Erickson and Grasz on the Eighth Circuit panel in *[[Female Athletes United v. Ellison]]*, No. 25-2899. Its opinion, filed April 15, 2026, affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction on [[Title IX]] claims.[^1] He is also a member of the three-judge district court hearing *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]*. In that action the United States challenges the Minnesota Department of Human Services Hiring/[[Pre-Hire Justification policy]] under [[Title VII]]. The case was filed January 14, 2026 and remains ongoing.[^2] In the Eighth Circuit appeal, the panel held that the plaintiffs had standing. It ruled against them because Title IX supplies a private right of action only for intentional sex discrimination.[^1] The project's merged master records that an earlier characterization, drawn from the Minnesota Attorney General's press release, placed the loss on standing. The opinion affirmed standing and rested on the private right of action.[^1] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who - *Female Athletes United v. Ellison* was decided by a panel of Judges Gruender, Erickson and Grasz.[^1] - *United States v. State of Minnesota* is before a three-judge district court.[^2] - Its members are Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender, Chief Judge [[Patrick J. Schiltz]] of the District of Minnesota, and Judge [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] of the Eastern District of Arkansas.[^2] - Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins is assigned to the case after Foster's recusal.[^2] ### What - In *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, the panel affirmed the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction.[^1] - The panel held that the plaintiffs had standing, because a member identified as "Athlete 1" faced a scheduled game against the transgender athlete.[^1] - It further held that the plaintiffs' ineffective-accommodation and unequal-treatment claims "sound in disparate impact," and that Title IX provides no private right of action for such claims.[^1] - At argument the plaintiffs conceded: "we don't contest that there is no disparate impact claim under Title IX."[^1] - The panel stated that executive guidance and agency findings "do not reflect settled law."[^1] - It also stated that whether Title IX permits transgender participation "remains an open question of law."[^1] On that point it noted two cases pending before the Supreme Court: *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, No. 24-43, and *[[Little v. Hecox]]*, No. 24-38.[^1] - In *United States v. State of Minnesota*, the complaint challenges the Department of Human Services hiring policy under Title VII §§703(a)(1) and (a)(2). It is pleaded through *Bostock* textualism.[^2] - Prior validation recorded in the pack confirmed that the complaint cites [[§43A.191]] eight times.[^2] ### When - *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, was filed on January 14, 2026.[^2] - The State's response was due February 27, 2026.[^2] - The case was recorded as ongoing as of the source's refresh date, June 18, 2026.[^2] - The Eighth Circuit opinion in *Female Athletes United v. Ellison* was filed on April 15, 2026.[^1] - The federal suit was brought after [[Executive Order 11246]] was revoked by Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025.[^2] ### Where - *Female Athletes United v. Ellison* was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[^1] - *United States v. State of Minnesota* is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.[^2] ### How - To reach its holding on the private right of action, the panel applied *[[Alexander v. Sandoval]]*, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), through *[[Cannon v. University of Chicago]]*, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).[^1] - In *United States v. State of Minnesota*, the signed agency policy was filed as the operative Exhibit B.[^2] That exhibit contains the "[[Non-underrepresented candidate|non-underrepresented candidate]]" language.[^2] ## See also - [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] - [[Female Athletes United v. Ellison]] - [[Alexander v. Sandoval]] - [[Cannon v. University of Chicago]] - [[Little v. Hecox]] - [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]] - [[§43A.191]] - [[Executive Order 11246]] - [[Patrick J. Schiltz]] - [[D. Price Marshall Jr.]] ## Notes [^1]: How Minnesota Got Here (merged master, footnoted), entry [43], summarizing United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, *Female Athletes United v. Ellison*, No. 25-2899 (filed Apr. 15, 2026) (Gruender, J., with Erickson and Grasz) — establishes that the panel affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, found standing, and held there is no private right of action under Title IX for disparate-impact claims; it also corrects an earlier characterization drawn from the Minnesota Attorney General's press release. Validated; marked primary, 8th Cir. opinion fetched verbatim. No URL in the pack. [^2]: The Instrument No One Will Name (densified, 2026-06-18), entry [53], summarizing United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (filed Jan. 14, 2026) — establishes the Title VII claims, the operative Exhibit B, the three-judge court's composition, the State's Feb. 27, 2026 response deadline, and the complaint's eight citations of §43A.191. Validated; marked primary-confirmed. No URL in the pack.