U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews on Monday denied a request that he recuse himself from a lawsuit about transgender athletes’ participation, rejecting the argument that his courtroom protocols on the use of pronouns meant he had “prejudged” the case.

Last week, attorneys challenging a policy of the Colorado Springs-based Mountain West Conference alleged they could not properly litigate their case thanks to a section of Crews’ practice standards, which govern the procedural aspects of civil cases.

According to Crews’ protocols, attorneys are “invited and encouraged to identify the applicable pronouns of counsel, litigants, and witnesses at the earliest juncture possible,” and to refer to people using their preferred titles and pronouns. If someone uses the wrong pronoun, “counsel are encouraged to bring that to the Court’s attention,” read the practice standards.

The lawyers argued they believed in using male pronouns to refer to a trans female athlete. Further, it violated their First Amendment right to free speech to compel them to say otherwise.

But in a Feb. 24 order, Crews emphasized the lawyers can use whatever pronouns they wish, “so long as they remain respectful.”

“Ironically, it would appear Plaintiffs attempt to restrain and compel this Court’s speech to their preferred terms,” wrote Crews, an appointee of Joe Biden.

Attorneys William Bock III and Justin R. Olson are suing the Mountain West Conference, which is a private membership organization of universities in Colorado and eight other western states, over a policy in existence since August 2022 allowing for the participation of trans athletes. If a school refuses to compete against another team because of a trans player, the refusing team will have a loss recorded against them.

The attorneys claimed the issue before Crews is whether “anyone who identifies with the opposite sex becomes a member of that sex.” They argued Crews’ pronoun policy amounted to a constitutional violation and that Crews has effectively “prejudged” the case by recognizing the existence of trans athletes.

“I am concerned that the Court’s (standards) could subject me to sanctions merely for adhering to my personal beliefs and for zealously advocating on behalf of my clients,” wrote Bock in a Feb. 18 motion.

The motion asked that Crews rescind the pronoun policy within his practice standards — a policy that five other judges on the district court also have adopted — and that the case be reassigned to a judge who does not have such a rule.

In response, Crews quoted the code of conduct for federal judges, which requires that they perform their duties “with respect for others” and that they ensure respectful conduct “by those subject to the judge’s control.”

“Courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, utilize the preferred pronouns of those involved in judicial proceedings out of courtesy and respect, not out of bias and prejudgment,” he wrote.

Crews explained that the practice standards, despite encouraging courtroom participants to alert judges if incorrect pronouns are used, do not actually obligate lawyers to adhere to a person’s chosen pronouns.

He acknowledged that he told the parties repeatedly in November he would refer to a trans female athlete using feminine pronouns. At that time, however, Crews also advised them “not to construe my use of she/her … as any indication that the court has prejudged any issues in this case.”

“Consistent with the Court having twice told Plaintiffs they may use whatever pronouns they choose, Plaintiffs have done exactly that throughout this litigation in their written filings and oral advocacy,” he wrote. Such conduct resulted in no “admonishment or threat of sanctions from the Court.”

Crews added there was “no need” to rescind the pronoun portion of his practice standards. Moreover, he deemed it “irrational” that the mere use of a person’s applicable pronouns would signal his ultimate decision on the legal questions of the case.

“And no party should continue to confuse the Court’s show of respect and courtesy for bias and prejudgment,” Crews concluded.

The case is Slusser et al. v. The Mountain West Conference et al.