Supreme Court Weighs Future of Women’s Sports in Landmark Transgender Cases

The Supreme Court heard extended arguments this week in two pivotal cases that could determine the future of women’s sports across America. The justices engaged in nearly three and a half hours of questioning in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., focused on whether states can legally restrict transgender athletes from competing on teams that align with their gender identity rather than their biological sex.

At the heart of these cases lies a fundamental question that has become increasingly controversial in American society: What is a woman? While the justices focused largely on technical legal standards, this underlying question permeated the proceedings.

The cases arrive amid growing national tension over transgender participation in women’s sports. According to a United Nations report cited during arguments, more than 600 female athletes worldwide have lost over 890 medals in 29 different sports to “males who identify as women” as of August 2024. In response, more than half of U.S. states have enacted legislation to keep sports participation separated by biological sex.

Idaho became the first state to pass such legislation in 2020 with its “Fairness in Women’s Sports” law, which restricts participation on athletic teams in public schools based on biological sex. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who wanted to join Boise State University’s women’s track and cross-country teams, challenged the law as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court subsequently blocked Idaho from enforcing the law.

West Virginia followed with its own “Save Women’s Sports” law in 2023. Before implementation, B.P.J., then an 11-year-old transgender girl, filed a lawsuit that temporarily halted enforcement. West Virginia contends that B.P.J. eventually won competitions against female competitors, displacing them from potential advancement opportunities. The state also claims five female athletes refused to compete against B.P.J. The Fourth Circuit ultimately blocked West Virginia’s law as well.

During Tuesday’s arguments, Idaho’s legal team contended their law classifies on the basis of biological sex and treats boys and girls equally by separating them in sports for fairness and safety reasons. Opponents argued the law impermissibly excluded transgender girls from participating in sports for discriminatory reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito directly addressed this point, asking the ACLU attorney representing the West Virginia transgender athlete: “You argue this is a status-based classification that targets transgender individuals. But if a state law treats all biological males the same — meaning no biological male can play on the girls’ team — and it treats all biological females the same, how is that a status-based classification?”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who famously declined to define “woman” during her confirmation hearings, suggested a case-by-case approach where schools could create exceptions for transgender students who could medically demonstrate they did not possess physical advantages.

The Title IX implications of these cases received significant attention in the second round of arguments. Title IX, passed in 1972, prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational settings and has been credited with dramatically expanding opportunities for female athletes.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about ruling on discrimination without defining the very term at issue: “You are asking us to find discrimination, but you are also urging us not to define the very word — ‘sex’ — that the statute is built upon. I don’t see how we can do that.” He added that for fair administration across thousands of schools, “sex must mean something specific and objective.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the broader implications for women’s athletics: “One of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women and girls’ sports,” he said. “And it’s inspiring. [Many groups] think that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will create unfairness.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored a 2020 decision finding that “sex” in employment discrimination law includes transgender individuals, suggested sports might be different. He referenced the Javits Amendment and decades-old regulations, asking, “Why doesn’t that make this case very different than Title VII?”

The Court is expected to issue its decision by the end of the term in June. While observers anticipate the justices may side with protecting women’s sports, the scope of the ruling remains uncertain—as does whether the Court will definitively address the underlying question of what legally constitutes a woman.

The outcome will have far-reaching implications for athletic programs nationwide, potentially establishing clear guidelines for how schools navigate the complex intersection of gender identity, biological sex, and fair competition in sports.