During a Supreme Court oral argument on Tuesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports, questioning whether these laws discriminate against transgender individuals. She directed similar questions at the attorneys general of Idaho and West Virginia, who defended these laws and their treatment of transgender athletes compared to biological girls.
Jackson pointedly asked Idaho Attorney General Alan Hurst about the implications of the Women’s Sports Fairness Act, emphasizing that it seems designed to exclude transgender women from women’s teams. “How does this law not reflect distinctions based on transgender status?” she inquired.
In response, Hurst argued that the law is focused on the gender of the athlete rather than their transgender identity. He stated, “Congress aimed to keep women’s sports for women, excluding men.” This response prompted Jackson to follow up, pressing on the different treatment of transgender women versus cisgender women.
In another instance, she posed similar questions to West Virginia Attorney General Michael Williams regarding the state’s law on women’s sports. The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on both cases, with a ruling anticipated by summer that could significantly affect how many states, potentially about 20, restrict transgender athletes in various sports, from elementary levels to college.
Jackson made a compelling point, suggesting that the laws may create a second layer of discrimination, further separating transgender women from female athletes. In West Virginia, a 15-year-old transgender boy made the argument that this legislation violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Williams voiced that the Court should closely evaluate how state laws differentiate between athletes based strictly on gender, but Jackson countered, asserting that the definitions being applied result in unequal treatment between transgender and cisgender athletes.
She argued that the classification system essentially requires everyone to participate aligned with their sex assigned at birth, while allowing some distinctions based on gender identity, which unfairly impacts transgender girls. “We’re essentially defining ‘girl’ in a way that excludes those not designated as such at birth,” Jackson said.
Williams suggested that if the Court affirms the states’ right to delineate gender in sports, it sets the stage for disputes over the definition of “girl” to be handled with less rigorous legal scrutiny. However, he added, “I don’t think the courts need to go that far.” Jackson’s inquiry about the definition of “girl” struck a chord reminiscent of a notable moment during her confirmation hearing in 2022 when she refrained from defining “woman,” stating, “I’m not a biologist.” This exchange often reflects the complex dialogue surrounding transgender rights, where direct answers to pointed questions can remain elusive.
