Supreme Court Reviews Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports

The U.S. Supreme Court seems to be leaning towards accepting state laws that prevent biological males identifying as transgender from participating in women’s sports, as it reviewed two related cases.

During three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, the court examined a case from West Virginia and Idaho that challenges laws meant to safeguard women and girls in athletics from male competitors.

The court started with the case of Little v. Hecox, initiated in 2020 by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete aiming to join the women’s cross-country team at Boise State University. A lower court had blocked the implementation of the law, but the state requested the Supreme Court to evaluate whether this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The second case, State of West Virginia v. BPJ, involves an act that protects women’s sports in West Virginia, contested by Becky Pepper Jackson, a transgender person who has identified as female since third grade and has been using puberty blockers since early adolescence.

Diverse perspectives emerged from several justices supporting the controversial state laws. Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about how a state could claim equal protection violations based on gender without a concrete definition of what constitutes “boy or girl” or “man or woman.”

“Well, how can a court determine whether there is discrimination based on sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?” Alito pressed.

He also pointed out that many female athletes strongly oppose allowing transgender athletes in women’s sports.

“What do you think about them? Are they bigots? Are they deluded into thinking they are facing unfair competition?” he queried.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh reflected on his experience coaching girls’ basketball and considered women’s sports one of America’s significant achievements over the last fifty years.

“Some states, the federal government, the NCAA, and other organizations believe that allowing transgender women and girls to compete would undermine that success,” Kavanaugh noted. “There’s a harm for female players who didn’t make the team or won’t be able to compete.”

Chief Justice John Roberts considered what it would mean to create exceptions in defining “female” for sports contexts.

“If we adopt it, it needs to apply across the board, not just in the field of athletics,” he said.

Justice Clarence Thomas inquired whether the law would affect “poor tennis players without great athletic ability” attempting to try out for women’s teams after being overlooked by men’s teams.

“That’s exactly what we’re concerned about,” said Idaho Attorney General Alan Hurst, reinforcing that the argument for exceptions isn’t limited to transgender individuals.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson declined to define “woman” during her confirmation but questioned how Idaho’s law operates differently for transgender and cisgender women.

“I think the law functions differently for cisgender and transgender women when it comes to team participation, which seems distinctive based on gender identity,” she stated.

Riley Gaines, a former college swimmer turned activist, remarked on Jackson’s comments, questioning if they imply a push for a singular category for all athletes.

“Does she think athletes with disabilities should compete against able-bodied athletes?” Gaines asked.

The court, with a conservative majority, is expected to render a decision by this summer.