(NewsNation) — A pair of Supreme Court cases heard nearly 4 hours of oral arguments Tuesday, as justices consider whether states can bar transgender girls and women from competing on school teams.
The two cases, “Little v. Hecox” and “West Virginia v. B.P.J.,” were argued back to back, touching on legal issues regarding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and how far states can extend sex-based classifications in school sports.
The court’s conservative majority, which has repeatedly ruled against transgender Americans in the past year, signaled it would rule that state bans don’t violate either the Constitution or federal law.
The outcomes of these cases are poised to set a nationwide precedent on how gender identity affects athletic opportunity in public education.
What are the cases about?
The Idaho case stems from the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, the first such law in the nation, which bars transgender women and girls from competing on women’s sports teams at public schools and universities. Before the legislation was enacted in 2020, Idaho followed existing athletic rules that allowed transgender women to compete on school teams after a year of hormone therapy.
Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who was enrolled at Boise State University, was banned from trying out for women’s track and cross-country teams despite completing a year of hormone therapy.
She sued, arguing the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex and transgender status.
Similarly, the West Virginia case focuses on the 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act, which classifies public school and college sports teams by biological sex and bars athletes assigned as male at birth from competing on women’s teams.
This law was challenged by a woman and her transgender daughter, B.P.J., who has identified as a girl since the third grade and received puberty blockers and estrogen to treat gender dysphoria.
The then-middle schooler sued state education officials, arguing that barring B.P.J. from girls teams violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.
How did the lower courts rule?
After Hecox sued, a district court issued an injunction on the implementation of the law, finding it likely violated the Equal Protection Clause. This allowed Hecox to try out for the women’s cross-country team while the case proceeded.
The appellate court agreed with the lower court and ruled the statute discriminates based on transgender status and sex by subjecting girls teams, but not boys teams, “to invasive sex verification procedures to implement” the law.
The ruling, however, applied only to Hecox, and the case was sent back to the district court.
As the years passed, Hecox dropped her claims, arguing the case was moot because she was no longer a college student, and asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case with prejudice. Hecox’s lawyers requested the justices to throw out the appellate court ruling, which was in her favor and send the case back to the lower court with directions to dismiss it.
The state opposed the request, saying the ruling continued to harm its ability to enforce the law, and the district court agreed, sending the case back to the Supreme Court.
In West Virginia, the district court initially blocked the law, then reversed course, ruling that excluding B.P.J. from girls sports did not violate the Constitution or Title IX. The appellate court partially reversed, finding that the law’s application to B.P.J. violated Title IX and that her equal protection claim could not be resolved without addressing factual disputes.
Both cases are now before the nation’s highest court.
What arguments are the athletes making?
Both challengers are represented by overlapping legal groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP.
Attorneys for Hecox are urging the Supreme Court to keep the lower court’s block on Idaho’s law in place and return the case to lower courts to consider facts not previously addressed, including the differences between men and women “that necessitate separate sports teams,” SCOTUSblog reported.
They argue the Idaho law warrants heightened scrutiny because it targets transgender people and is overly broad, excluding “all transgender women and girls, many of whom (like Lindsay) have circulating testosterone at levels typical of cisgender women and girls,” according to the outlet.
B.P.J.’s lawyers want the Supreme Court to avoid considering new claims about transgender athletic advantages not raised below and instead focus on how the law affects her specifically.
The student argues that under Title IX, excluding her for being transgender is sex discrimination, especially since she never went through male puberty and takes hormone treatments. She contends she has no competitive advantage, undermining the state’s stated goal of protecting women’s sports.
Neither plaintiff argues that all transgender women and girls should be eligible to compete, but instead seeks eligibility only for those with testosterone levels comparable to cisgender women, whom their lawyers say have “no athletic advantage.”
What are the states arguing?
Idaho and West Virginia argue that their laws are necessary to protect “fairness and safety” in girls sports.
Idaho contends that physical differences persist despite hormone therapy, and urges the high court to defer to legislative judgment.
Idaho also argues the law does not discriminate against athletes because they are transgender, saying none “of the Act’s operative provisions classify based on whether someone identifies as transgender,” SCOTUSblog reported.
West Virginia similarly argues its law “implicates ‘fierce scientific and policy debates,” and is best left to lawmakers.
It says while “sex is generally irrelevant” in the workplace, Title IX concerns education, “where biological differences are critical to athletic fairness,” and that the statute “designates sports based on biological sex—exactly what Title IX permits.”
The state also maintains that B.P.J.’s equal-protection claim fails because she is treated the same as other athletes assigned male at birth.
How might the Supreme Court rule?
The high court’s recent decision on transgender medical care may offer clues to how it will rule.
In a 6-3 decision last year, the justices upheld a Tennessee law restricting puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, finding it did not constitute sex discrimination and deferring to legislative judgment.
“Neither classification turns on sex. The law prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s six Republican-appointed justices.
The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented.
“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.