A day after a state law went into effect banning transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports, a federal judge temporarily blocked the law from being applied against a New Hampshire teenager.

Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire ruled Monday that neither the state nor a school district can prevent 15-year-old Parker Tirrell from participating in practices or games of the Plymouth Regional High School girls’ soccer team until the court reconvenes in a few weeks.

Due to the ruling, Tirrell will be able to attend soccer practice with her team on Monday evening.

“Parker has shown that she is likely to succeed in her case,” McCafferty said after a brief hearing. McCafferty’s ruling is limited and applies only to Tirrell; plaintiffs in the case are seeking a broader ruling in the coming weeks that would suspend the law for all student-athletes.

Tirrell, a transgender girl, was told last week by the Pemi-Baker Regional School District that she could not attend soccer practice on Monday night. The school district cited a law that Bill 1205that prohibits students in grades 5 through 12 who were biologically born boys from participating on girls’ sports teams, even if they are transgender. The law, which went into effect Sunday, allows the parents of any student to sue a school district if it fails to follow the law and enforce the ban.

Republicans have said the law is necessary to ensure fairness among athletes, arguing that transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls – those born biologically female. Democrats and LGBTQ advocates say the law is discriminatory and would exclude transgender girls who do not want to compete on boys’ teams from participating in sports.

Lawyers from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire have petitioned the state on behalf of two transgender girls, Tirrell and Iris Turmelleand argued that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the anti-sex discrimination law known as Title IX.

On Monday, the plaintiffs appeared before McCafferty for an emergency hearing prompted by the fact that Tirrell had soccer practice Monday night and had been told she could not attend. Turmelle, a student from Pembroke, has no plans to join a sports team until winter, so attorneys did not request an emergency hearing for her.

The plaintiffs sought an “injunction” against the law, a form of short-term relief that requires the judge to find that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, that a decision in favor of the plaintiff would be most equitable to all parties, and that it would be in the public interest.

Chris Erchull, an attorney with GLAD, argued before McCafferty that if Tirell were barred from participating in sports, she would suffer irreparable harm because she would face discrimination and potentially shame and stigma from those around her.

Michael DeGrandis, an attorney for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, disputed that a ban from football practice would cause irreparable harm and argued against granting the injunction.

“Of course it’s stressful and upsetting” to miss sports training, he said. “But is it irreparable damage?”

And he said the underlying law, HB 1205, is designed to protect, not violate, the rights of girls and women under Title IX.

During a brief oral argument, McCafferty expressed skepticism about that position and asked DeGrandis to explain how the law would protect the girls’ rights. “How does applying it to Parker serve that goal?” she asked DeGrandis.

DeGrandis said the law was not designed to apply equally in all cases, and if it applied differently to some students, that was not unconstitutional. “Parker’s circumstances are irrelevant to the application of the law,” he argued.

Erchull, meanwhile, pointed out that Tirrell and Turmelle had undergone hormone therapy, which had negated any physical advantages they may have had before.

“They will not be faster or stronger than normal girls,” he told the court.

McCafferty seemed to agree, pointing to the “indisputable fact that there is no physiological advantage” for Tirrell to exercise, as Tirrell has undergone hormone therapy that has negated any biological advantage she may have had previously.

The ruling is the beginning of what is likely to be a long legal process that could ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys plan to seek a preliminary injunction at the next hearing, expected in the next few weeks, which would provide a longer-term stay that would prevent the law from being applied to all students while the case is heard in U.S. District Court.