![\"Demonstrators](\"https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/img_9647-1024x768.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Demonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, as justices heard two cases on state bans of trans athletes. (Photo by Jane Norman\/States Newsroom)<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON \u2014 The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s conservative majority appeared likely Tuesday to keep in place laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning\u00a0transgender athletes<\/a> from participating on women\u2019s and girls\u2019 sports teams.<\/p>\n The outcomes from the nation\u2019s highest court expected later this year could have sweeping implications for transgender rights more broadly as President Donald Trump\u2019s administration\u2019s efforts to roll back those rights have extended far beyond athletics.\u00a0<\/p>\n In lengthy, back-to-back oral arguments, justices heard two cases \u2014\u00a0Little v. Hecox<\/a> and\u00a0West Virginia v. B.P.J.<\/a> \u2014 which both deal with whether those states\u2019 bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The West Virginia case also calls into question whether its prohibition on transgender athletes participating in women\u2019s and girls\u2019 sports violates the\u00a0 federal civil rights law barring sex-based discrimination in education programs known as Title IX.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rulings in lower courts have halted the two states from implementing the bans, to varying extents, leading GOP attorneys general in Idaho and West Virginia to ask the Supreme Court to step in.\u00a0<\/p>\n Idaho and West Virginia represent just two of the nearly 30 states with laws banning transgender students\u2019 participation in sports consistent with their gender identity, according to the\u00a0Movement Advancement Project<\/a>, an independent think tank.\u00a0<\/p>\n During oral arguments in the Idaho case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he sees the growth of women\u2019s and girls\u2019 sports as one of the country\u2019s great successes over the past half-century.\u00a0<\/p>\n He noted that some states, the federal government, the NCAA and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee \u201cthink that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will create unfairness.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He added that \u201cfor the individual girl who does not make the team, or doesn\u2019t get on the stand for the medal, or doesn\u2019t make all league, there\u2019s a harm there, and I think we can\u2019t sweep that aside.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Kavanaugh is part of the court\u2019s conservative wing, whose members outnumber liberals 6-3.<\/p>\n Kavanaugh\u2019s comment seemingly endorsed West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams\u2019 framing of the issue, as a protection of women and girl athletes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Williams told the justices that \u201cmaintaining separate boys\u2019 and girls\u2019 sports teams ensures that girls can safely and fairly compete in school sports.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He argued that Title IX \u201cpermits sex-separated teams,\u201d and \u201cit does so because biological sex matters in athletics in ways both obvious and undeniable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Joshua Block, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender athlete at the forefront of the West Virginia case.<\/p>\n Block said that though West Virginia \u201cargues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them\u201d to Pepper-Jackson, \u201cTitle IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone, and if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there\u2019s no basis to exclude her.\u201d<\/p>\n Idaho\u2019s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, argued that \u201cgender identity does not matter in sports, and that\u2019s why Idaho\u2019s law does not classify on the basis of gender identity.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Hurst said the law \u201ctreats all males equally and all females equally, regardless of identity.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney with Cooley LLP, represented Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student in Idaho who wanted to try out for the women\u2019s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University but would have been barred from doing so under the Idaho law because she is transgender.<\/p>\n A federal court in Idaho halted the law from taking effect in 2020. A federal appeals court initially upheld the ruling in 2023 but adjusted the scope of it in 2024 to only apply to Hecox, not other athletes.<\/p>\n Hartnett said the law ignored that trans girls who take medication to block testosterone do not have an inherent physical advantage in sports.<\/p>\n \u201cCirculating testosterone after puberty is the main determinant of sex-based biological advantage that (the Idaho law) sought to address,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Hecox \u201chas mitigated that advantage because she has suppressed her testosterone for over a year and taken estrogen,\u201d Hartnett said.<\/p>\n The Idaho law, Hartnett said, \u201cthus fails heightened scrutiny as applied to Lindsay and transgender women like her who have no sex-based biological advantage as compared to birth sex females.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Hecox has asked both an Idaho federal court and the Supreme Court to drop the case. Though a federal judge in Idaho\u00a0rejected that attempt<\/a> in October, the Supreme Court deferred the request until after oral arguments and could ultimately dismiss her case in the coming months.\u00a0<\/p>\n Earlier landmark rulings involving transgender rights came up before the court Tuesday \u2014 including United States v. Skrmetti in 2025 and Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.\u00a0<\/p>\n In\u00a0United States v. Skrmetti<\/a>, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee\u2019s prohibition on gender-affirming care for minors.<\/p>\n The court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that LGBTQ+ employees are protected from employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\u00a0<\/p>\n Kavanaugh suggested the wide-ranging landscape of laws on the issue throughout the country meant the court should tread carefully in meddling in state laws.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven that half the states are allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point \u2014 just the role of this court \u2014 jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there\u2019s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate?\u201d he asked Hartnett.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the Trump administration has taken steps at the federal level to prohibit trans athletes\u2019 participation in women\u2019s sports teams aligning with their gender identity, including the president signing an\u00a0executive order in February 2025<\/a> that banned such participation.\u00a0<\/p>\n He also signed executive orders regarding transgender people including orders that\u00a0make it<\/a> the \u201cpolicy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,\u201d restrict access to\u00a0gender-affirming care<\/a> for kids and aim to bar openly\u00a0transgender service members<\/a> from the U.S. military.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Demonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, as justices heard two cases on state bans of trans athletes. (Photo by Jane Norman\/States Newsroom) WASHINGTON \u2014 The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s conservative majority appeared likely Tuesday to keep in place laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning\u00a0transgender athletes from participating on women\u2019s…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":8463,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n ![\"Demonstrators](\"https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/img_9632-scaled.jpeg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>Title IX debated<\/h4>\n
Idaho case<\/h4>\n
\n\n ![\"Demonstrators](\"https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/img_9649-scaled.jpeg\" "\\"Demonstrators")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>Issue actively debated<\/h4>\n