Ex-college athletes support state restrictions on transgender athletes in women’s sports

Supreme Court to Review Cases on Transgender Athletes

The Supreme Court decided to take on two significant cases related to transgender athletes in women’s and girls’ sports, which could have widespread implications for state laws barring biological men from competing on women’s teams.

These cases, known as Little v. Hecox and West Virginia vs. BPJ, were initiated by former NCAA female athletes who expressed concerns following their experiences with transgender competitors. Madison Kenyon, a former student athlete from Idaho State who ran cross-country and track, recalled her own challenges when forced to compete against trans athletes back in 2019.

“Our coach informed us, basically, that we would be competing alongside male athletes at certain events. I remember looking around at my teammates, wondering how they felt about this,” Kenyon shared. “It was never really a question of whether I would compete; I just gave it my all. That male athlete outperformed me and my teammates consistently throughout the season.”

In the Little v. Hecox case, Lindsay Hecox, a trans athlete at Boise State University, aimed to join the women’s cross-country team. She is joined in her lawsuit by an anonymous cisgender female student, known as Jane Doe, who has raised concerns about potential invasive verification procedures regarding biological sex.

The District Court in Idaho temporarily blocked the law, suggesting it might be unconstitutional, a decision that the Ninth Circuit later upheld. The Supreme Court now has a chance to address this issue.

Rainey Amisted, a former soccer player at Stetson University, is involved in the West Virginia vs. BPJ case. She feels compelled to stand against what she sees as injustices affecting female athletes due to the presence of transgender athletes in their competitions. “We’ve heard about how opportunities, scholarships, and podium spots are being affected. West Virginia responded by enacting the Women’s Sports Act,” she mentioned.

This lawsuit, brought forth by a transgender athlete referred to as BPJ, led to a ruling from the Fourth Circuit declaring that the law breached Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The state is now appealing that decision to the Supreme Court.

Amisted and Kenyon joined these legal battles during a time when public sentiment in the country didn’t seem to favor their viewpoints. The Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling could set a precedent regarding the right of states to restrict trans athletes from participating in women’s sports.

However, John Bursch, an attorney representing Armistead and Kenyon, suggested that the legal arguments may extend beyond merely state rights. He emphasized the broader implications, arguing, “We shouldn’t get sidetracked by state rights. Under Title IX, there’s a clear differentiation between men and women that should guide outcomes.”

Currently, 27 states across the U.S. have enacted laws restricting trans athletes from participating in women’s sports. An executive order signed by former President Donald Trump also aimed to promote this agenda nationwide. Bursch believes that if the Supreme Court sides with the states, this trend will likely continue, leading to even more states adopting similar measures to protect women’s sports.