The U.S. Supreme Court heard high-stakes arguments Tuesday in two closely watched cases that could redefine the future of women’s and girls’ sports across the country. At issue: whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar biological males from competing in female sports violate the Constitution or Title IX — the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and B.P.J. v. West Virginia, have sparked fierce national debate over fairness, gender identity, and the boundaries of athletic competition. Supporters of the laws argue they protect competitive integrity and the rights of female athletes. Opponents claim the bans unfairly target transgender individuals and violate civil rights protections.
During Tuesday’s arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum raised challenging questions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the idea of the Supreme Court imposing a national standard, pointing to the split among states. “Given that half the states are allowing it, half are not, why would we try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country?” he asked.
Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed concerns over the lack of scientific consensus. Lawyers representing transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox argued that hormone therapy mitigates physical advantages, but Gorsuch and others weren’t fully convinced.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett drilled into whether the laws actually discriminate based on transgender status, since trans boys are permitted on boys’ teams. Meanwhile, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor focused on what they viewed as clear distinctions in how the laws treat cisgender and transgender athletes. Jackson noted, “The law operates differently for cisgender women and transgender women.”
West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, defended the state’s stance. “Biological sex matters in athletics in ways both obvious and undeniable,” he told the court. “Sports are indifferent to gender identity.”
That position clashed with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Joshua Block, who argued that Title IX protections should extend to transgender girls, asserting that banning them from female teams constitutes sex-based discrimination.
Justice Clarence Thomas pressed on the question of legal interpretation, challenging whether transgender status — not explicitly mentioned in Title IX — could be retroactively applied. “You’re challenging a category that does not exist in the statute,” he said.
In closing, Williams reiterated that biology plays a decisive role in sports and warned against judicial overreach into areas where science is still evolving. “In areas of evolving science and medicine, legislatures have the primary responsibility for weighing competing evidence,” he said.
The court’s decision could have sweeping implications nationwide — not just for high school and college athletics, but for the future of how gender identity is recognized in American law.
