In America: SCOTUS To Rule Over Transgender Sports Ban Cases
SCOTUS will begin listening to oral-arguments in January regarding state transgender sport bans. In Little v. Hecox & West Virginia v. B.P.J., the states intend on barring all transgender women and girls from playing on sports teams in any public schools or college. What’s at stake goes beyond sports; the legal precedent set by SCOTUS from its decision could impact civil rights, state power, and create a path for future litigation challenging the current social acceptance of transgender rights and other individual rights.
What Idaho’s & West Virginia's Laws Do
Idaho’s House Bill 500, commonly referred to as the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” requires athletics to be strictly based on biological sex. The law says for women and girls’ sports, teams are not open to individuals of the male sex. In situations where the sex of an athlete is questioned, the law requires schools to perform a health examination through a consent form to verify the student’s biological sex. This rule applies across all levels of competition.
A transgender student-athlete, named Lindsay Hecox, was attending Boise State University and intended on trying out for the women’s track and cross-country teams. Due to the ban, Hecox would not be allowed to play on these teams. Other student-athletes from Idaho raised concerns for the sex-verification process viewing it as intrusive medical procedures. In “Little v. Hecox,” individuals have created a mass tort litigation challenging the state law. The U.S. District Court of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction against the Act holding it likely violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Court found the Act subjects student-athletes to an intrusive sex verification process, categorically bans and discriminates against transgender women, and failed to provide evidence as to how the Act related to Idaho's interests in sex equality and opportunity for women athletes. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision and returned the case to the lower court to further review the scope of the injunctive relief.
West Virginia’s HB 3293, also known as the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” requires K-12 schools and state colleges to designate sports teams based on biological sex. It prohibits transgender women/girls and biological males from participating in teams designated for biological females. Earlier versions of the bill supported verifying student-athlete’s sex by birth certificates or physician’s statements confirming biological sex.
B.P.J., a middle schooler and transgender girl who transitioned in third grade had been competing on girl’s teams while on puberty blockers and estrogen to prevent the effects of male pubertal development. When West Virginia enacted HB 3293, it made it so B.P.J. could no longer play on the school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams. Through parental representation, B.P.J. sued the West Virginia State Board of Education and West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission. In “West Virginia v. B.P.J.,” B.P.J. claimed being excluded from girls’ sports violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Initially the district court allowed B.P.J. to compete under a preliminary injunction. However, the court then reversed the decision and upheld the law stating the sex-based classification related to government interests ensuring fairness and opportunity in girls’ athletics. The court upheld excluding B.P.J. from girls’ sports stating the law didn’t violate the 14th Amendment or Title IX. On appeal, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling holding that application of the law violated Title IX.
SCOTUS, upon granting certiorari, has agreed to consolidate these cases to decide how to apply the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX and determine the scope of state power in this situation.
Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, & The Scope Of State Power
Does the Equal Protection Clause permit laws that bar transgender girls/women from female-designated sports teams?
The Court will need to determine if excluding transgender girls/women from female sports based on assigned sex at birth violates the 14th Amendment. Idaho and West Virginia argue that the laws protect competitive fairness and safety of biological women/girls competing in sports. The Respondents (Hecox et al. & B.P.J.), argue the laws are sex-based discrimination and gender-identity discrimination.
Does Title IX allow states to separate sports teams based on biological sex?
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The Court will decide if Title IX permits or prohibits categorical bans on transgender girls/women in female sports. The States argue Title IX allows the separation based on biological sex. The Respondents argue Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. This argument is consistent with former legal precedent established from Bostock v. Clayton.
Can states categorically exclude transgender athletes, or must the states evaluate eligibility case-by-case?
Detail-specific limitations on participation in female-designated sports could create complexity in the legal understanding of transgender rights and how they’re applied socially. Keeping consistency through evaluation of eligibility case-by-case could be extremely difficult.
A ruling upholding the bans could green‑light similar laws nationwide. A ruling striking them down could establish a national baseline for transgender participation in school sports. SCOTUS’ ruling on the cases could affect broader transgender rights, not just athletics.
What’s At Stake – Beyond Sports
Many other states have passed similar bans. If SCOTUS is to allow these states’ laws, it could create sweeping effects nationally. Concerned perspectives claim it may redefine the legal status of gender identity allowing lawmakers to create restrictive or discriminatory laws based on gender identity throughout all aspects of public life. It could reshape Title IX, narrowing federal protections against sex discrimination and change how schools handle gender identity. It could open the doors to challenges in healthcare, ID documents, usage of bathrooms, locker rooms, dormitory/housing assignments, field trip accommodations, participation in sex-segregated classes/activities, and more.
