The plaintiffs in both of these cases are trans-identifying male student athletes.
minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
The United States Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it would hear two significant cases that challenge state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit trans-identifying male athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports. The two cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., will be heard during the High Court's next session, beginning October 2025.
The plaintiffs in both of these cases are trans-identifying male student athletes.
Little v. Hecox
In March 2020, Idaho enacted a state law titled "Fairness in Women's Sports Act," which bans trans-identifying male athletes from participating in female sports at publicly funded institutions, requiring participation based on biological sex. Lindsay Hecox, a trans-identifying student athlete at Boise State University, sued the state after being barred from trying out for the women's track and cross-country teams. Two additional transgender athletes joined the lawsuit, arguing that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the US Constitution.
The US District Court of Idaho issued an injunction against the law, citing sex discrimination, which was later upheld by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status and sex. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador petitioned the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
A 13-year-old plaintiff, identified in the lawsuit as B.P.J., filed a complaint against West Virginia over its "Save Women's Sports Act," a state law that prohibits male athletes from participating in women's sports. Attorneys representing a male who identifies as transgender, argued in the suit that the male child has been identifying as a girl since the third grade, and has been taking puberty blockers ever since. B.P.J. claims that the state law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX by preventing him from participating in his school's girls' cross country and track teams.
The US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction, allowing B.P.J. to participate in the girls' sports teams. The court later reversed its decision upon review of cross-motions for summary judgment, and rejected the child's claims, ruling that the law was both constitutional and did not violate Title IX.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the lower court's decision, ruling on appeal that the law's sole purpose and effect were to prevent transgender athletes from playing on girls' teams, which amounted to violations of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court found that the law violated Title IX by treating the child unfairly and depriving him of any meaningful athletic opportunities on the basis of sex.
Kristen Waggoner, President of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who petitioned the Supreme Court to hear these two cases, welcomed the High Court's decision, writing in a social media post, "For far too long, female athletes have been sidelined, silenced, and denied the chance to be champions. While cultural winds have shifted toward reality - and nearly 8 in 10 Americans now support protecting women's sports - too many courts are still ruling for gender activists. It's time for the Supreme Court to settle the question."
The plaintiffs in both of these cases are trans-identifying male student athletes.
Little v. Hecox
In March 2020, Idaho enacted a state law titled "Fairness in Women's Sports Act," which bans trans-identifying male athletes from participating in female sports at publicly funded institutions, requiring participation based on biological sex. Lindsay Hecox, a trans-identifying student athlete at Boise State University, sued the state after being barred from trying out for the women's track and cross-country teams. Two additional transgender athletes joined the lawsuit, arguing that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the US Constitution.
The US District Court of Idaho issued an injunction against the law, citing sex discrimination, which was later upheld by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status and sex. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador petitioned the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
A 13-year-old plaintiff, identified in the lawsuit as B.P.J., filed a complaint against West Virginia over its "Save Women's Sports Act," a state law that prohibits male athletes from participating in women's sports. Attorneys representing a male who identifies as transgender, argued in the suit that the male child has been identifying as a girl since the third grade, and has been taking puberty blockers ever since. B.P.J. claims that the state law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX by preventing him from participating in his school's girls' cross country and track teams.
The US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction, allowing B.P.J. to participate in the girls' sports teams. The court later reversed its decision upon review of cross-motions for summary judgment, and rejected the child's claims, ruling that the law was both constitutional and did not violate Title IX.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the lower court's decision, ruling on appeal that the law's sole purpose and effect were to prevent transgender athletes from playing on girls' teams, which amounted to violations of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court found that the law violated Title IX by treating the child unfairly and depriving him of any meaningful athletic opportunities on the basis of sex.
Kristen Waggoner, President of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who petitioned the Supreme Court to hear these two cases, welcomed the High Court's decision, writing in a social media post, "For far too long, female athletes have been sidelined, silenced, and denied the chance to be champions. While cultural winds have shifted toward reality - and nearly 8 in 10 Americans now support protecting women's sports - too many courts are still ruling for gender activists. It's time for the Supreme Court to settle the question."
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments