Can a Texas student-athlete use prescribed testosterone for gender transition and still compete under the UIL steroid rules?
Plain-English summary
The Commissioner of Education asked the Attorney General for an expedited opinion on how the University Interscholastic League (UIL) steroid rules apply to a specific situation: UIL had received complaints about a female student-athlete who may be taking testosterone for gender-transitioning purposes. The request raised three questions, and the AG answered each one.
First, can steroid use by a minor for gender transition ever count as a "valid medical purpose" under Education Code section 33.091(h)? The AG said no. The Education Code's exception only applies when a steroid is "dispensed, prescribed, delivered, and administered by a medical practitioner for a valid medical purpose and in the course of professional practice." A 2023 Texas law (Health and Safety Code subchapter 161.701 to .706) already makes it unlawful to provide "supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females" for transitioning a child's biological sex, and makes that a license-revoking offense for physicians. Because the underlying treatment is itself prohibited, the AG reasoned it cannot be a valid medical purpose. The opinion notes a narrow exception for a course of treatment that began before June 1, 2023, but that exception requires the child to wean off the drug, so it does not authorize ongoing transition treatment.
Second, may UIL investigate a student-athlete's suspected steroid use even though the Legislature no longer funds the random-testing program? Yes. The AG explained that UIL's District Executive Committee is obligated to "enforce all rules" and "investigate all allegations of violations," including questions about a contestant's eligibility. Concerns raised by coaches and parents validly put the student-athlete's eligibility in question, which triggers UIL's authority to look into it.
Third, what follows once eligibility is questioned? Under UIL's own rules, when a student's eligibility "is questioned," the student "has the burden in any proceeding to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible." The AG concluded that the student-athlete may not compete until they meet that burden, and that a refusal to cooperate has the same effect as a failure to prove eligibility: the student remains ineligible.
What this means for you
If you run a school district, athletic program, or are a UIL District Executive Committee member
The opinion treats a credible concern about a student-athlete's steroid use as enough to "question" eligibility under UIL rule 410(a), which the AG reads as triggering both the obligation to investigate and the authority to hold the student out of varsity competition until eligibility is shown. The AG also reads UIL's enforcement rules (sections 28(j)(1) to (2)) as a mandate, not an option, to investigate allegations. The opinion notes that the loss of state funding for the random-testing program does not remove UIL's authority to ask the student-athlete or their parents about suspected illegal steroid use.
If you are a parent or student-athlete
Based on this opinion, once a student's eligibility is questioned the burden is on the student, not on UIL, to prove eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The AG states that whether the student "fails or simply refuses" to meet that burden, the result is the same: the student is treated as ineligible and should be removed from UIL contests until eligibility is established. The opinion also flags that falsifying the required UIL forms, or withholding information, is itself a rules violation that can carry sanctions.
If you are a school attorney or administrator advising on a specific case
The AG's reasoning ties the Education Code's "valid medical purpose" exception to the substantive prohibition in Health and Safety Code section 161.702. The opinion's logic is that conduct already unlawful under that section (and grounds for revoking a physician's license under Occupations Code section 164.0552) cannot simultaneously be a "valid medical purpose" under Education Code section 33.091(h). The opinion is an interpretation of state law as it stood in February 2025; it does not make new findings of fact about any individual.
Common questions
Q: What did the AG actually decide about testosterone and gender transition here?
A: The AG concluded that giving steroids, including testosterone, to a minor to transition the minor's biological sex is not a "valid medical purpose" under Education Code section 33.091, because a 2023 Texas statute already prohibits that treatment for children and makes it grounds to revoke a physician's license.
Q: Does UIL still have power to investigate if the state stopped funding steroid testing?
A: Yes. The AG concluded that even without the funded random-testing program, UIL may ask a student-athlete or their parents about suspected illegal steroid use, because UIL's District Executive Committee is obligated to enforce its rules and investigate eligibility questions.
Q: Who has the burden of proof when eligibility is questioned?
A: The student. UIL rule 410(a) provides that once a student's eligibility "is questioned," the student must establish eligibility "by the preponderance of the evidence." The AG read this to mean the student cannot compete until they meet that burden.
Q: What happens if the student-athlete refuses to cooperate with the investigation?
A: The AG concluded the outcome is the same as failing to prove eligibility. A refusal to cooperate is treated as declining the burden that rests with the student, so the student remains ineligible for participation.
Q: Is there any exception for a child already receiving treatment?
A: The opinion describes a narrow exception under Health and Safety Code section 161.703 for a continuing course of treatment that began before June 1, 2023, conditioned on prior counseling. But that exception requires the child to wean off the drug and bars switching to another prohibited drug, so the AG concluded it does not authorize ongoing transition treatment.
Background and statutory framework
The UIL governs extracurricular athletic and academic contests across Texas (Univ. Interscholastic League v. Sw. Officials Ass'n, Inc., 319 S.W.3d 952, 954 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.)). Education Code section 33.091 directs UIL to adopt rules prohibiting a student from participating in a sanctioned athletic competition unless the student agrees not to use steroids, submits to random testing under the program established in subsection (d), and the parent signs an acknowledgment of the steroid rules. Section 33.091(a)(3) defines "steroid" by reference to Health and Safety Code section 481.104, which includes testosterone and substances chemically or pharmacologically related to it. Sections 33.203(a) and (b) require each participating student to complete UIL's medical-history and acknowledgment forms.
Subsection 33.091(h) creates the exception at the center of the request: it applies when a steroid is "dispensed, prescribed, delivered, and administered by a medical practitioner for a valid medical purpose and in the course of professional practice." The AG construed "valid medical purpose" using dictionary definitions and the parallel language in the Controlled Substances Act (Health and Safety Code section 481.071(a)), which bars a practitioner from prescribing a controlled substance except for a valid medical purpose in the course of medical practice.
The opinion then turns to the 2023 enactment codified at Health and Safety Code sections 161.701 to .706, which makes it unlawful to provide prescription drugs that induce infertility, including supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females, for transitioning a child's biological sex (id. § 161.702(3)(B)). The same legislation made a violation a "prohibited practice" requiring revocation of a physician's license (Occ. Code § 164.0552(a)), and authorizes the attorney general to bring an enforcement action (Health & Safety Code § 161.706(a)). The Texas Supreme Court upheld the statute's constitutionality in State v. Loe, 692 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. 2024). A narrow exception in section 161.703 covers treatment begun before June 1, 2023, but requires weaning off the drug.
On the procedural questions, the opinion relies on UIL's Constitution and Contest Rules: the District Executive Committee's duty to enforce rules and investigate eligibility (section 28(j)(1) to (2)), and the rule that once a student's eligibility "is questioned," the student bears the burden of proving eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence (section 410(a)).
Citations and references
Statutes:
- Tex. Educ. Code § 33.091 — UIL steroid rules, testing, and the valid-medical-purpose exception
- Tex. Educ. Code § 33.203 — required preparticipation and acknowledgment forms
- Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.071 — valid medical purpose under the Controlled Substances Act
- Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 161, subch. X (§§ 161.701–.706) — gender transition procedures and treatments for certain children
- Tex. Occ. Code § 164.0552 — prohibited practice; license revocation
Key cases:
- State v. Loe, 692 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. 2024) — upholding the constitutionality of the 2023 child gender-transition statute
- Univ. Interscholastic League v. Sw. Officials Ass'n, Inc., 319 S.W.3d 952 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) — UIL's rulemaking and sanctions authority
- Scally v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 351 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) — standard-of-care violations show the lack of a valid medical purpose
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0481
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2025/kp-0481.pdf
Original opinion text
KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
February 6, 2025
Mr. Mike Morath
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701-1494
Opinion No. KP-0481
Re: Interpretation of the University Interscholastic League's legal rights and duties regarding illegal steroid use under the Education Code (RQ-0578-KP)
Dear Commissioner Morath:
You requested an expedited opinion on the legal framework governing the prohibition on steroid use in University Interscholastic League ("UIL") athletic competitions.1 In particular, you indicate that UIL "received several complaints regarding its competitions" and direct us to an attached letter—written by UIL Deputy Director Jamey Harrison—which itemizes "the specific questions that need to be resolved." Request Letter at 1. The letter confirms that UIL "received numerous inquiries from coaches and parents . . . expressing concerns about a female student-athlete who may be taking testosterone . . . for gender-transitioning purposes" and raises three questions involving: (1) the scope of the Education Code's medical exception, (2) UIL's authority to investigate a student-athlete's suspected use of steroids, and (3) the obligations that follow from eligibility questions. Attachment at 1–3. We address each in turn.
Background on the UIL program and rules.
We begin with a discussion of UIL's program and statutorily mandated rules. The UIL governs extracurricular athletic and academic contests across Texas. See generally Univ. Interscholastic League v. Sw. Officials Ass'n, Inc., 319 S.W.3d 952, 954 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.). In relevant part, the Education Code directs the UIL to adopt baseline rules "prohibiting a student from participating in an athletic competition sponsored or sanctioned by the league" unless the following conditions apply:
1 Letter and Attachment from Mr. Mike Morath, Comm'r of Educ., Tex. Educ. Agency, to Hon. Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/request-files/request/2025/RQ0578KP.pdf ("Request Letter" and "Attachment," respectively) (Attachment on file with the Op. Comm.). Because the event at issue is scheduled to begin on February 7, 2025, we proceed without external briefing.
Mr. Mike Morath - Page 2
(1) the student agrees not to use steroids and, if the student is enrolled in high school, the student submits to random testing for the presence of illegal steroids in the student's body, in accordance with the [steroid-testing] program established under Subsection (d); and
(2) the [UIL] obtains from the student's parent a statement signed by the parent and acknowledging that:
(A) the parent's child, if enrolled in high school, may be subject to random steroid testing;
(B) state law prohibits possessing, dispensing, delivering, or administering a steroid in a manner not allowed by state law;
(C) state law provides that bodybuilding, muscle enhancement, or the increase of muscle bulk or strength through the use of a steroid by a person who is in good health is not a valid medical purpose;
(D) only a licensed practitioner with prescriptive authority may prescribe a steroid for a person; and
(E) a violation of state law concerning steroids is a criminal offense punishable by confinement in jail or imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.091(b); see also id. § 33.091(a)(3) (defining "[s]teroid" by reference to section 481.104 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, which includes "testosterone" as well as "any substance that is chemically or pharmacologically related to testosterone"); see generally Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex. v. GTE-Sw., Inc., 901 S.W.2d 401, 407 (Tex. 1995) ("As a general rule, the legislature impliedly intends that an agency should have whatever power is reasonably necessary to fulfill a function or perform a duty that the legislature has expressly placed in the agency." (citation omitted)).
The Education Code likewise directs that "[e]ach student participating in an extracurricular athletic activity must complete the [UIL] forms entitled 'Preparticipation Physical Evaluation--Medical History' and 'Acknowledgment of Rules.'" TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.203(a). Notably, those forms "must clearly state that [a] failure to accurately and truthfully answer all questions . . . [is] a condition for participation in an extracurricular athletic activity" and "subjects [the] signer . . . to penalties determined by the [UIL]." Id. § 33.203(b). A student-athlete and their parent or guardian must also sign a form discussing illegal steroid usage and testing,2 which requires all to affirm that the student-athlete "will not use anabolic steroids as defined in the UIL Anabolic Steroid Testing
2 CONSTITUTION AND CONTEST RULES, UIL, § 1205(a)(4), https://www.uiltexas.org/files/policy/2024-2025-UIL-Constitution.pdf ("CONSTITUTION AND RULES").
Mr. Mike Morath - Page 3
Program Protocol."3 Further, a parent must acknowledge that "bodybuilding, muscle enhancement, or the increase of muscle bulk or strength through the use of a steroid by a person who is in good health is not a valid medical purpose." Id. § 33.091(b)(2)(C).
A "valid medical purpose" under section 33.091 does not contemplate administration of a steroid to female minors for purposes of transitioning the minor's biological sex.
Your first question asks "whether a minor's use of steroids for gender-transitioning purposes can ever be a valid medical purpose" under subsection 33.091(h). Attachment at 1. We note, however, that this subsection does not predicate the limited exception for steroid usage—providing a student need not agree "not to use steroids" or "submit to random testing" under the UIL's rules—on the existence of a "valid medical purpose" alone. A steroid must be "dispensed, prescribed, delivered, and administered by a medical practitioner for a valid medical purpose and in the course of professional practice." TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.091(h) (emphasis added). Because the Education Code does not define these terms, we must assess the "common, ordinary meaning" of each phrase as reflected in relevant dictionaries and "usage in other statutes, court decisions, and similar authorities." Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Marriage & Fam. Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass'n, 511 S.W.3d 28, 34–35 (Tex. 2017); see also, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.011(b) ("Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.").
We begin with the term "valid," which has long been understood as a descriptive reference to "legal strength or force" or something that has been "executed with proper formalities," meaning it is "incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 618, 1075 (6th ed. abridged 1991); see also, e.g., WEBSTER'S NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 1274 (3d ed. 1994) (defining "valid" as "[w]ell-grounded" and "sound"). The term "professional," too, plainly sounds in the expected "characteristic of a profession." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 930 (10th ed. 1993); see also, e.g., BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1246 (8th ed. 2004) (referencing "professional" as "[a] person who belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires a high level of training and proficiency"); AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1400 (4th ed. 2000) (defining the term as "[h]aving or showing great skill," as with an "expert" or "[a] skilled practitioner"); WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED 1811 (1981) (defining "professional" as "one that engages in a particular pursuit, study, or science for gain or livelihood . . . with sufficient authority or practical experience in an area of knowledge or endeavor to resemble a professional").
This conception of the valid, professional provision of medication is further reinforced in other frameworks that use nearly identical terminology. Chapter 481 of the Controlled Substances Act—the very framework from which UIL's definition of "steroid" is drawn, TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.091(a)(3) (incorporating TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.104)—also commands that medical "practitioner[s] . . . may not prescribe, dispense, deliver, or administer . . . or cause a controlled substance to be administered . . . except for a valid medical purpose and in the course of medical practice." TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.071(a); see also, e.g., id.
3 PARENT AND STUDENT AGREEMENT/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM ANABOLIC STEROID USE AND RANDOM STEROID TESTING FORM, UIL, https://www.uiltexas.org/files/health/steroid-agreement.pdf ("Steroid Policy Form").
Mr. Mike Morath - Page 4
§ 481.129(c)(1) (criminalizing the knowing delivery of "a prescription . . . for [something] other than a valid medical purpose in the course of professional practice"). Courts construing this language have therefore referenced professional standards of care to emphasize whether conduct is, in fact, undertaken with a valid medical purpose. See, e.g., Scally v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 351 S.W.3d 434, 450–56 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. denied) (affirming Medical Board's license revocation given substantiated standard-of-care violations, which demonstrated the lack of a "valid medical purpose"); see also, e.g., United States v. Rosen, 582 F.2d 1032, 1036 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting the absence of a legitimate medical purpose under a federal analog where the physician conducted no physical examination, issued many prescriptions, and used "street slang" in reference to drugs); United States v. Collier, 478 F.2d 268, 270–72 (5th Cir. 1973) (rejecting vagueness challenge to a federal analog, where the phrase "course of professional practice" was "[m]anifestly . . . intended to limit . . . immunity" and did not aid "doctors [who] become drug 'pushers'").
To be sure, the existence of a "valid medical purpose" would in certain cases represent a fact question based on applicable standards of care. But the Legislature answered the question here as a matter of public policy when it recently enacted a new subchapter within the Health and Safety Code to address "Gender Transitioning and Gender Reassignment Procedures and Treatments for Certain Children."4 Act of May 17, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 335, § 2, 2023 Tex. Gen. Laws 732, 732–33 (codified at TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 161.701–.706); see generally State v. Loe, 692 S.W.3d 215, 239 (Tex. 2024) (upholding constitutionality). Accordingly, in Texas it is unlawful to "provide, prescribe, administer, or dispense . . . prescription drugs that induce transient or permanent infertility," which includes "supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females" for "transitioning a child's biological sex." TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 161.702(3)(B); see also, e.g., id. § 161.706(a) (permitting "the attorney general [to] bring an action . . . to restrain or enjoin [a] person from committing, continuing to commit, or repeating the violation"). Further, the Legislature simultaneously amended the Occupations Code to make a violation of this section a "prohibited practice" that requires revocation of a physician's "license or other authorization to practice medicine." Act of May 17, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 335, § 4, 2023 Tex. Gen. Laws 732, 734 (codified at TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.0552(a)).
Ultimately, the illegal provision of steroids to a child—conduct that would independently justify liability and revocation of one's medical license—cannot constitute a "valid medical purpose" undertaken "in the course of professional practice." TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.091(h); see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0401 (2022) at 1, 13 (concluding sex-change treatments, including "supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females," can constitute child abuse under the
4 The Legislature's conclusion, of course, simply confirms reality: Myriad entities and institutions around the world have conducted systematic reviews of the "science" behind cross-sex hormones for children with gender dysphoria and universally concluded that the putative evidence behind this abusive practice is non-existent. See, e.g., Hilary Cass, M.D., Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young Adults, NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES ENGLAND (Apr. 2024), https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/; Jonas. F. Ludvigsson, et al., A Systematic Review of Hormone Treatment for Children with Gender Dysphoria and Recommendations for Research, 112 ACTA PAEDIATRICA 2279, 2280 (2023); Romina Brignardello-Petersen & Wojtek Wiercioch, Effects of Gender Affirming Therapies in People with Gender Dysphoria: Evaluation of the Best Available Evidence (May 16, 2022), https://ahca.myflorida.com/content/download/4864/file/AHCA_GAPMS_June_2022_Attachment_C.pdf.
Mr. Mike Morath - Page 5
Family Code). To be sure, there is a narrow exception to the general prohibition; but it does not contemplate continued attempts to transition a child. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 161.703. The statute excepts "a continuing course of treatment that the child began before June 1, 2023" so long as the child also "attended 12 or more sessions of mental health counseling or psychotherapy during a period of at least six months before the date the course of treatment began." Id. § 161.703(b). Importantly, however, the statute also directs that individuals within this narrow group "shall wean off the prescription drug over a period of time and . . . may not switch to or begin a course of treatment on another prescription drug" that is prohibited under section 161.702. Id. § 161.703(c). As a result, there can be no valid medical purpose where a child's use of steroids extends farther—let alone at present, a year-and-a-half after Texas law mandated children "wean off" any such treatments. Id. § 161.702–.703. This impossibility is only magnified by the fact that the "wean off" period itself cannot convert what was (and still is) child abuse into the valid, professional provision of medical care. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0401 (2022) at 1, 13.
UIL has the authority and obligation to enforce its rules, and UIL may remove a student-athlete from participating in UIL activities if their eligibility is "questioned."
Your remaining questions pertain to UIL's authority to investigate illegal steroid use by a student-athlete. Attachment at 2. Though you acknowledge the statutory mandate that UIL adopt rules requiring "random testing," TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.091(d), you indicate that the Legislature no longer funds the program. Attachment at 2. You therefore ask whether UIL may alternatively query a student-athlete or their parents about the illegal provision of steroids. Id.
The answer is yes. As you share, UIL has already "received numerous inquiries from coaches and parents of UIL participants expressing concerns about a female student-athlete who may be taking testosterone."5 Id. at 2–4. Those concerns validly implicate the student-athlete's eligibility to participate in an athletic competition and implicate the District Executive Committee's obligation to "enforce all rules" as well as "investigate all allegations of violations of the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules regarding . . . students," which includes "the eligibility of contestants." CONSTITUTION AND RULES § 28(j)(1)–(2); see also, e.g., TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 33.091(b)(1) (granting UIL authority to sanction or prohibit participation in competition if a student uses steroids), .081(b) (providing that students enrolled in Texas school districts are subject to UIL rules regarding participation in extracurricular activities when under supervision of a school or district); see generally Univ. Interscholastic League, 319 S.W.3d at 959 (confirming the Education Code grants UIL rulemaking and sanctions authority on certain educational policies).
UIL's Constitution and Rules provide "standards of eligibility" with which student-athletes must comply "to earn the privilege of representing their schools in interschool contests."6 Not only is acknowledgment of these rules a prerequisite for participation, TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.203(a); CONSTITUTION AND RULES § 1205(a)(4), but a student-athlete and their parent or guardian must
5 The use of testosterone by female athletes is nothing new. Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the East German government's notorious use of performance-enhancing drugs propelled their women's swimming team to capture eleven gold medals at the Montreal Olympics—placing the former country second overall with a total of forty gold medals. Guy Jackson, Doping for Glory in East Germany, THE UNESCO COURIER 10–11 (Sept. 2006).
6 About the UIL, UIL, https://www.uiltexas.org/about (last visited Feb. 5, 2025).
Mr. Mike Morath - Page 6
also sign the Steroid Policy Form attesting to compliance with the steroid policy before taking part in any covered activities. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 33.091(b); CONSTITUTION AND RULES § 1205(a)(5). Even more, taking steroids for an invalid medical purpose or falsifying the requisite forms violates the UIL's eligibility requirements and can result in sanctions against the student-athlete—including a bar on participation. See CONSTITUTION AND RULES § 50(a)(1) (violating eligibility rules), (a)(2) ("falsifying records or reports or withholding information"), (a)(4) ("failing to comply with applicable state laws regarding extracurricular activities"). "School district personnel," too, may prove liable for "failing to report known violations in a timely manner or withholding information." Id. § 51(a)(6).
At bottom, the student-athlete's eligibility has already been questioned by multiple sources. Id. UIL therefore has the obligation to investigate and the coordinate authority to remove the student-athlete from covered activities until they can prove eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. CONSTITUTION AND RULES §§ 28(j)(1)–(2) (enforcement and investigation mandate), 410(a) (providing that student's eligibility need only be "questioned" to trigger an eligibility inquiry); see also, e.g., 2024–2025 DISTRICT EXEC. COMMITTEE ATHLETIC HANDBOOK, UIL, 13, https://www.uiltexas.org/files/policy/2024-2025_DEC_HB.pdf (noting that if a student cannot attend an eligibility hearing, "a student may not participate in varsity competition until . . . a decision [is] reached").
A student-athlete whose eligibility is "questioned" must demonstrate their eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence in order to participate in covered events.
"If a student's eligibility to compete in a UIL contest is questioned," the rules provide, "the student has the burden in any proceeding to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible." CONSTITUTION AND RULES § 410(a) (emphasis added). Though "burden" and "preponderance of the evidence" are not defined in the UIL's rules or in the Education Code, "the common, ordinary meaning" should control. Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. Rodriguez, 547 S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018). A "burden" is a "duty or responsibility," BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 208 (8th ed. 2004); see also id. at 209 (defining "burden of persuasion" as "[a] party's duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party"), and a "[p]reponderance of the evidence" means "[t]he greater weight of the evidence" that "incline[s] a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other," id. at 1220. As such, the student-athlete must present "credible evidence that would create a reasonable belief in the truth of [their eligibility]." Herrera v. Stahl, 441 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (discussing the meaning of "preponderance of the evidence").
We emphasize once more that the burden of proof is on the student-athlete to demonstrate eligibility once "questioned." CONSTITUTION AND RULES § 410(a). Whether the student-athlete fails or simply refuses that obligation does not change that UIL should, in either circumstance, conclude the student-athlete remains ineligible for participation. A refusal to cooperate with the valid, investigatory prerogative of UIL amounts to little more than a conscious choice to decline the burden that rests squarely with the student-athlete.
Mr. Mike Morath - Page 7
S U M M A R Y
A "valid medical purpose" under Education Code section 33.091 does not contemplate the provision of steroids to a minor for transitioning the minor's biological sex. Suspected use of steroids for this purpose is a basis to question the student-athlete's eligibility to participate in University Interscholastic League (UIL) activities and obligates UIL to investigate as well as require the student-athlete prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are eligible. A student-athlete may not take part in UIL competitions until their eligibility is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Very truly yours,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General
LESLEY FRENCH
Chief of Staff
D. FORREST BRUMBAUGH
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
JOSHUA C. FIVESON
Chair, Opinion Committee
AMY L. K. WILLS
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee