The stands at Buchanan High School in Clovis are usually loud, but last May, the air felt different. Thicker. If you were there for the CIF State Track and Field Championships, you probably saw the plane circling overhead. It was trailing a banner that read "NO BOYS IN GIRLS' SPORTS!" while, down on the dirt, a junior from Jurupa Valley High named AB Hernandez was preparing to jump.
It wasn't just another track meet. It was the moment California’s long-standing policies on gender identity finally collided with a massive, national cultural firestorm. Honestly, the whole scene felt less like a high school sports event and more like a political battlefield.
The AB Hernandez Controversy Explained
California has had a policy since 2013—basically a decade-plus—that says students can play on teams matching their gender identity. Simple, right? Well, it was until Hernandez started putting up marks that weren't just good; they were dominant. We’re talking about a triple jump of 42 feet, 2.75 inches. That’s massive.
When Hernandez won the Southern Section titles in the long jump and triple jump, the internet basically exploded. Three Southern California private schools—JSerra, Orange Lutheran, and Crean Lutheran—didn't just grumble. They sent out a joint letter. They called it a "stand" for the "rights, duties, and dignity" of their female athletes. They didn't pull their kids out, but they made sure everyone knew they weren't happy.
Then things got weird.
👉 See also: Kentucky Derby Starting Lineup: Why the Post Position Draw Changes Everything
Instead of backing down or doubling down on the status quo, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) invented a "pilot program" on the fly. This is the part most people get wrong or miss entirely. They didn't kick Hernandez out. But they didn't just let the results stand as usual either.
The Double Podium: A Solution or a Mess?
If you looked at the podium for the high jump, you saw three people on the top step.
Under this new "pilot" rule, if a transgender athlete won or placed, the "biological female" who finished right behind them got the same medal and the same spot on the podium. It was like a glitch in the matrix. Hernandez won the high jump with a 5’7” leap, but shared that gold medal with Lelani Laruelle and Jillene Wetteland.
The CIF also added extra lanes and spots in the prelims so that no girl would be "displaced" from the state meet because of Hernandez’s qualifying marks.
Is it fair? Depends on who you ask.
- The Supporters: Groups like Equality California called it a way to be inclusive without taking away opportunities. They point out that Hernandez is just a kid trying to play a sport she loves.
- The Critics: They argue this is the "erasure of female athletics." They see the double podium as a participation trophy that ignores the physical reality of male puberty.
What’s Happening Right Now?
It’s now 2026, and the dust hasn't settled. In fact, it's getting more complicated.
✨ Don't miss: Alabama WR Ryan Williams: What Most People Get Wrong About the Sophomore Slump
Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court has been hearing arguments on cases out of West Virginia and Idaho (like the Becky Pepper-Jackson case) that could fundamentally change the rules for everyone. If the Supreme Court rules that states can ban transgender girls from female categories, California’s Education Code 221.5(f)—the law that protects these athletes—might be on a collision course with federal law.
Even local districts are caught in the crossfire. Take Tahoe Truckee Unified. They’ve been trying to stay in the Nevada athletic association (NIAA) because Nevada changed their rules to be sex-based. But California officials told them: "Move to the CIF by the 2026-27 season or you can’t compete at all."
It's a high-stakes game of chicken.
Why This Matters for the Next Season
If you're a parent or an athlete in California, you've got to realize the "Clovis compromise" from last year was just a band-aid. The CIF is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. There’s a massive tension between state law (which says "identity matters") and a 2025 Executive Order (which says "biological sex matters for Title IX funding").
Essentially, California is an island. While 27 other states have moved toward bans or restrictions based on biological sex, California is doubling down on its 2013 guidelines.
Actionable Insights for Athletes and Parents
If you're navigating the upcoming track season in California, here is what you actually need to know:
- Document Everything: If you're a female athlete who feels displaced or impacted, keep a record of results and placements. This is becoming a legal issue as much as a sports one.
- Understand the "Pilot" Rules: Expect the double-podium and "extra-qualifier" rules to stay in place for the 2026 postseason unless a court order stops them.
- Follow the Supreme Court: The ruling expected later this year on the B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education case will likely dictate whether the CIF can keep its current policy or if it will be forced to change to keep federal funding.
- Engage Locally: School boards are the front line. Whether you want to protect the current inclusive policy or advocate for sex-segregated categories, the Tahoe Truckee situation shows that local board meetings are where the actual policy battles are happening.
The era of "just go out and run" is kinda over for now. Every PR and every podium finish in California track is currently part of a much bigger, much louder conversation.