California high school volleyball forfeits rise amid dispute over transgender athlete on Jurupa Valley team

A California high school volleyball controversy intensified Tuesday as Patriot High School forfeited its Sept. 26 match against Jurupa Valley High School, the latest in a series of forfeits tied to a transgender athlete competing within the Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD).

JUSD confirmed the Patriot forfeit in a brief statement, noting that the match against Jurupa Valley, which lists AB Hernandez on its roster, would not be played. The development marks the eighth forfeit linked to Jurupa Valley in recent weeks and is part of a broader dispute surrounding transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports within the district and state.

The forfeiture pattern stretches back to mid-September, when Jurupa Valley also faced three forfeits at the Freeway Games tournament on Sept. 13. Aquinas High School, Yucaipa High School and San Dimas High School declined to play Jurupa Valley during that weekend’s slate. In the weeks prior, Riverside Poly High School, Rim of The World High School, Orange Vista High School and AB Miller High School all forfeited to Jurupa Valley, underscoring what district officials described as a rising dispute that has drawn attention from families, coaches and policymakers.

Three current or former Jurupa Valley teammates have filed suit against the Jurupa Unified School District, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) and the California Department of Education (CDE) over their experience sharing a team and locker room with AB Hernandez. The plaintiffs—seniors Alyssa McPherson and Hadeel Hazameh, and Madison McPherson, Alyssa’s older sister who graduated last year—describe a hostile environment in which they were pressured by school officials to accept competing with, and sharing spaces with, a transgender athlete.

"Plaintiffs have been intimidated by an intentionally hostile environment created by Defendants wherein they were bullied by school officials to censor their objections to competing with, and against, a male and to sharing intimate and private spaces with a male," the lawsuit contends, according to court documents accompanying the filing. The McPherson family, identifying as practicing Catholics, cited beliefs that God created humans as male and female and that gender is fixed.

Hazameh and her family identify as practicing Muslims, according to the court materials, which say Islamic teachings discourage exposing the hair or body to males and emphasize distinct biological differences between the sexes. They have said that Hernandez’s participation in girls’ sports and access to shared spaces has caused religiously grounded concerns for their family.

The district responded to the case with a broader point about state governance of public education. In a statement to Fox News Digital, JUSD emphasized that school districts do not write state laws or unilaterally override them, and urged supporters of the issue to engage state and federal officials who set the rules for public education. The district also said it follows state law and that any changes would require action by the legislature or the governor.

"School districts do not write laws for the state of California, nor do they have the power to ignore them or change them. However, as primarily state-funded agencies, they are required to follow them. As these issues play out in our courts and the media, any advocacy on these matters should be directed at state and federal officials elected to make laws and policies that affect public education," the statement read.

The California Department of Education declined to comment on pending litigation, while CIF officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A CDE spokesperson told Fox News Digital that they cannot comment on pending litigation, and CIF has not issued a public response to the lawsuit. The governor’s office said responsibility for policy lies with CIF, CDE and the Legislature, not with Gov. Gavin Newsom personally.

The dispute has drawn national attention as athletes and parents call for clarity in how schools implement equity rules and how they balance competitive fairness with inclusion. Advocates for transgender athletes argue that participation rules should be consistent, fair and based on science, while opponents have urged caution about safety, privacy and gender identity considerations.

Hernandez’s presence on Jurupa Valley’s roster has become a focal point for both the forfeits and the lawsuit, but district officials say they are not commenting on pending litigation while the case moves through the courts. The CIF, which governs high school sports in California, has yet to issue a public statement on the matter.

The broader context includes state policy that has been in place since 2013, with California law generally permitting transgender student-athlete participation in accordance with local and state guidelines. The current dispute reflects questions about how those guidelines are implemented at the district level, particularly when teams face opponents that refuse to play due to the presence of a transgender athlete.

As the legal process unfolds, the families involved in the lawsuit say they hope for a resolution that protects both the safety and privacy of players and the rights of students to participate in school activities consistent with their gender identity. District officials say they will continue to comply with state law and to engage with state authorities and the courts to resolve the matter.

The controversy also highlights the role of media coverage in shaping public perception of transgender athletes in school sports. Advocates say forums for discussion and policy development are essential, while critics argue for clear rules that they say better reflect parental and community concerns. In the meantime, the volleyball season—and the related disputes over team composition, facilities, and competition—continues to unfold across districts with similar debates nationwide.

The case in California’s Inland Empire region is one of several high-profile examples around the country where districts are navigating the interplay of inclusive policies and competitive fairness. Observers say there is no simple solution, and that each district’s approach often hinges on a combination of state law, CIF policies, school-board decisions, and input from families and students.

As the legal and competitive landscape evolves, organizers and coaches in the district say they remain focused on student development and the safety and well-being of all participants, even as rulings and policy debates continue to unfold in courtrooms and legislative chambers alike. The next steps in the litigation, alongside any potential CIF or CDE actions, could influence how similar cases are handled in other California districts and beyond.