Becky Pepper-Jackson, center, holds hands with her mother Heather Jackson outside the Supreme Court after arguments over state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
CAROLINE SAVOIE | East Texas Staff Writer
carosavo@storydustsearch.com
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jan. 13, appeared likely to uphold state laws barring transgender women and girls from competing on female school sports teams, following nearly three-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in two closely watched cases from Idaho and West Virginia that could reshape civil rights protections for transgender students nationwide.
A majority of the justices, particularly the court’s conservative bloc, expressed skepticism toward challenges from transgender athletes and their families, signaling openness to allowing states to continue enforcing laws that exclude transgender girls from girls’ and women’s sports teams. The court’s three liberal justices acknowledged that the challengers faced long odds, so they focused instead on narrowing the scope of a potential ruling.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., challenge state laws that categorically prohibit transgender girls and women from participating on female sports teams at public schools and colleges. Lower courts blocked enforcement of both laws, finding they violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education.
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst told the justices the state’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act lawfully classifies athletes based on sex, not transgender status, arguing that sex-based distinctions are essential to ensuring fairness and safety in athletics.
“Sex is what matters in sports,” Hurst said, citing differences in muscle mass, bone density, and cardiovascular capacity.
Michael Williams, West Virginia’s solicitor general, echoed that argument, saying the state’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act reflects a long-standing practice of separating sports teams by sex to protect opportunities for women and girls.
Attorneys for the transgender athletes countered by saying the bans sweep too broadly, excluding students who do not have a physical advantage, the factor that the states claim to be regulating.
Kathleen Hartnett, representing Idaho plaintiff Lindsay Hecox, and Joshua Block, representing West Virginia student Becky Pepper-Jackson, argued that Title IX and the Constitution protect all students from discrimination, including transgender youth.
Block said that, unlike cisgender boys, excluding Jackson from girls’ teams effectively bars her from meaningful participation in school athletics altogether.
“Excluding B.P.J. from the girls’ teams excludes her from all athletic opportunity while stigmatizing and separating her from her peers,” he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether states should be able to enforce blanket bans against transgender athletes who have undergone puberty blockers or hormone therapy and lack the physical traits the laws claim to address.
Hashim Mooppan, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration in support of the states, responded that states need only show a “reasonable fit” between their laws and their stated goals, not tailor policies to individual athletes.
Chief Justice John Roberts and several conservative justices raised concerns that the challengers’ arguments could undermine sex-based distinctions across the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the court’s 2020 decision extending employment protections to LGBTQ+ workers, suggested that Title IX may not clearly prohibit such bans, noting the law was enacted under Congress’ spending power and that states in 1972 would have understood “sex” to mean biological sex.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the court should intervene at all amid what he described as scientific uncertainty and diverging state approaches, noting that roughly half the states permit transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams.
The Idaho case was brought by Hecox, now 24, who challenged the state law while seeking to try out for women’s teams at Boise State University. The West Virginia case centers on Becky-Pepper Jackson, a 15-year-old transgender girl who has publicly identified as female since elementary school and has competed on school track and cross-country teams while receiving puberty blockers and estrogen therapy.
Outside the courthouse, hundreds of demonstrators rallied in support of the athletes, joined by transgender youth, parents, civil rights leaders, faith leaders and members of Congress. Advocates argue the bans harm vulnerable students while doing little to address inequities in women’s sports.
Since 2020, at least 27 states have enacted laws restricting transgender students’ participation in school sports. Supporters of the bans frame them as necessary to protect women’s athletics, while opponents say they invite invasive scrutiny of all female athletes and fuel harassment and discrimination.
The court devoted little attention to Hecox’s request to dismiss her case as moot, despite her argument that she no longer plans to compete and wishes to avoid further public attention.
Legal experts say the decision should come down from the court by late spring or early summer. Advocates say the ruling could extend well beyond athletics, potentially shaping how courts interpret civil rights protections for transgender people in education, health care and other areas of public life.