On Tuesday, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson needed some guidance on basic legal terminology from lawyers during oral arguments in two cases relating to state laws that prohibit men, including transgender individuals, from competing on women’s sports teams.
Justice Department Attorney Hashim Muppan, advocating for state regulations, had to explain to Justice Jackson what “tailoring” meant. As noted in a piece from The Western Journal, in constitutional law, “adjustment” refers to how specific or broad a law should be, depending on the level of judicial scrutiny it is subjected to.
“Laws that are subject to a ‘strict review’ standard regarding fundamental constitutional rights may require more precise coordination than laws that do not pertain to such established constitutional rights,” Golden wrote.
During the arguments for Idaho, Muppan stated that the state’s law is “reasonably tailored, whether perfectly tailored or not, to apply to a small percentage of men. The state doesn’t have to redefine gender or oversee the testosterone levels of female athletes.”
Before Jackson posed questions to Muppan, she and Justice Amy Coney Barrett had noted how an interim review, instead of a strict review, might align better with Idaho’s laws. Jackson, somewhat confused, asked Muppan, “I guess I still don’t understand why states need to implement perfectly tailored laws.”
“I think it would be reasonable if states allowed exceptions for individuals who could demonstrate that the rationale behind the state’s actions doesn’t pertain to them,” Jackson added.
“So making an exception is essentially adjusting the law,” Muppan responded. “It literally means modifying your laws.”
Dan McLaughlin, a legal analyst with National Review, commented on this exchange in a post on X, suggesting, “You must be a very poor judge to require such extensive instruction from the lawyers before you.”
This discussion occurred during the case Little vs. Hecox, which involves the Women’s Sports Fairness Act in Idaho. The lawsuit, initiated in 2020 by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete wishing to join Boise State University’s women’s cross country team, challenged the legality of the state law.
A lower court ultimately blocked this law, along with over 20 other laws passed nationally aimed at safeguarding women’s sports. Idaho is now asking the Supreme Court whether a law that seeks to protect women’s and girls’ sports by restricting participation based on gender infringes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
