The United States Supreme Court has heard over three hours of oral arguments in two cases challenging state-level bans on transgender girls and women competing in girls’ and women’s school sports teams — a hearing that may redefine the reach of Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ students.
The court appeared receptive to arguments supporting the bans, according to multiple media reports, although the justices’ comments were often nuanced and difficult to interpret.
Two Cases, One Debate
The cases in question are West Virginia v. B.P.J., involving 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender student-athlete who competes in shot put and discus; and Little v. Hecox, involving Lindsay Hecox, a 25-year-old from Idaho who sued after Boise State University denied her the chance to try out for its women’s cross-country and track teams.
Both plaintiffs had won lower court injunctions allowing them to participate in their respective sports despite state laws banning transgender female athletes. Hecox later opted not to try out, leading some justices to question whether her case remains valid — an issue the court will address in its ruling.
Biological Advantage or Discrimination?
A central focus of the hearing was whether transgender girls and women who began hormone therapy before puberty — as Pepper-Jackson and Hecox did — retain any physical advantage over cisgender female athletes.
Lawyers supporting trans athletes argued that hormone treatments erase those advantages, while lawyers defending the bans contended that trans women, regardless of medical intervention, maintain physical traits that give them an edge in sport.
“There’s no question here that a male who identifies as a female, but is a male, is being excluded from a female sport,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, questioning the legal classification. “By its nature, that’s a sex classification. And all sex classifications, we have said repeatedly in our case law, require intermediate scrutiny.”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst, defending his state’s ban, disagreed, saying the issue wasn’t about discrimination against transgender people but about “biological advantages” stemming from male puberty.
He claimed cisgender women and girls had lost “hundreds of medals” to transgender competitors — though he provided no evidence. In fact, Becky Pepper-Jackson is the only openly trans student-athlete in all of West Virginia, and fewer than 10 of the NCAA’s 550,000 athletes identify as transgender.
“The number of trans female athletes who have participated and excelled are few and far between,” said Hecox’s lawyer Kathleen Hartnett.
What Title IX and the Constitution Say
Surprisingly, much of the argument did not focus on whether these bans violate Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, or the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
Although the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County held that discrimination against LGBTQ+ people qualifies as sex-based discrimination, sports remain a grey area under Title IX due to the Javits Amendment. This 1974 provision allows for sex-segregated teams as long as all students are given equitable opportunities overall.
Anti-trans attorneys argued that trans inclusion harms female athletes by depriving them of awards and team placements. Pro-trans lawyers countered that excluding trans athletes based on their sex assigned at birth is precisely the kind of discrimination that Title IX — and the Bostock decision — were meant to prevent.
Debates on Physicality, Gender, and Science
During the hearing, Hashim Mooppan, representing the federal government, argued that biological sex cannot be changed, stating:
“Male athletes who take performance-altering drugs are not similarly situated to female athletes, and states need not treat them the same.”
Hurst echoed this sentiment, citing traits like “size, muscle mass, bone density, and heart and lung capacity” as unalterable advantages. Hartnett responded that Hecox’s medical treatment, including testosterone suppression and estrogen, effectively mitigates any such differences.
Yet conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch noted:
“There is a healthy scientific dispute about the efficacy of these [medical] treatments.”
Even liberal justices acknowledged ongoing debates around the science.
Rhetoric from the Right
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether a ruling in favour of trans athletes would let “boys who just couldn’t make the [boys’] team” join the girls’ team — an idea aligned with conservative talking points, not current sports policy, which typically requires medical certification and treatment history for trans athletes.
She also asked whether the bans are discriminatory, given that trans athletes can still compete based on their sex assigned at birth. Hartnett replied that the laws specifically target trans girls and women, a historically marginalised group.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh praised the growth of women’s sport but claimed that allowing trans athletes might undermine that progress — despite the fact that organisations like the NCAA and U.S. Olympic Committee had long allowed trans inclusion, only reversing course recently under political pressure.
Kavanaugh also questioned whether a nationwide ruling was premature, given that 27 states currently have bans, while others do not.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether cisgender female athletes opposing trans inclusion are “bigots” or simply concerned. Hartnett calmly replied:
“That is not an accusation of animus. I would never call anyone that.”
Far-Reaching Implications
A ruling against Pepper-Jackson and Hecox could have major consequences for trans students. If the court decides Title IX does not protect trans athletes, that precedent could lead to a rollback of trans-inclusive school policies, such as using preferred names and pronouns, or accessing bathrooms aligned with gender identity.
“What’s at issue in this case is fair treatment for all people, including cis people and trans people,” said Josh Block, a pro-trans lawyer who spoke outside the court.
In a statement, Becky Pepper-Jackson expressed the emotional weight of the legal battle:
“All I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers,” she said. “But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me – the only transgender student athlete in the entire state – from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
The court’s decision is expected by mid-year.
