A state appeals court has invalidated a Nassau County law that restricted permits for women's sports events at county parks and facilities when a team included transgender women. The Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled on November 4 that the county measure conflicted with New York's Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law and was therefore preempted by statewide protections.
The four-judge panel reversed an October 2025 order from the state Supreme Court in Nassau County. The lower court had denied the attorney general's request for summary judgment and dismissed the state's complaint. The appellate court instead granted summary judgment to the state, denied the county's cross-motion and sent the matter back for entry of a judgment declaring the local law invalid.
Nassau enacted Local Law 3-2024 as a permitting rule for athletic events on county park property. In practice, the decision explains, women's teams and organizations could not receive a permit if they included transgender women. The attorney general challenged the measure on behalf of the People of the State of New York, arguing that a county cannot use local police power in a way that conflicts with general state law.
The panel relied on two sets of statewide protections. Civil Rights Law section 40-c bars discrimination in civil rights based on characteristics that include sex and gender identity or expression. The Human Rights Law prohibits owners and operators of public accommodations from denying facilities or privileges for many of the same reasons. State regulations further specify that discrimination based on gender identity or expression is sex discrimination.
Those provisions were decisive because county parks and facilities operate as public accommodations. The court held that the local permitting scheme restricted access based on gender identity and thus could not coexist with the state rules. Its reasoning centered on legal preemption and consistency between local and general law. The panel did not create a new statewide sports code or decide every question involving athletic eligibility.
The immediate procedural step is a return to the Nassau trial court for the formal declaratory judgment described by the Appellate Division. The decision awards costs to the state and directs the lower court to enter appropriate declarations. Any further litigation would occur through the available appellate process, but the November 4 order reverses the county's earlier summary-judgment victory.
The case also illustrates a limit on home rule. New York local governments have broad authority to legislate for public welfare, yet the state Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law prevent local measures that are inconsistent with a general state law. When a county permitting rule removes protection the Legislature has applied statewide, a court can invalidate the local measure without deciding whether another policy might be desirable.
For teams seeking county permits, the ruling removes the challenged restriction from the legal framework identified in the decision. Administrators will need to apply ordinary facility rules consistently while the lower court completes the judgment. The most reliable account of the holding is the three-page decision itself: it identifies the statute, the conflict and the remedy without requiring readers to adopt either side's political characterization. The unanimous panel listed Justices Betsy Barros, Deborah Dowling, Barry Warhit and Lisa Ottley. Its order concerns Nassau County's law and statewide anti-discrimination protections; it should not be expanded beyond the language the judges actually decided.
Primary sources: Appellate Division decision in People v. County of Nassau; New York Attorney General case statement. Reviewed November 5, 2026. Development: Decision issued November 4, 2026.