Supreme Court Leans Toward Upholding Trans Athlete Bans

The US Supreme Court heard nearly three and a half hours of arguments on Tuesday in two cases from Idaho and West Virginia. These cases challenge state laws that bar transgender girls from playing on girls' and women's school sports teams. Lower courts had blocked the laws, but a majority of justices appeared ready to allow them to take effect. The hearings mark the court's first deep look at transgender participation in sports.

Background

State laws in Idaho and West Virginia aim to keep sports teams for girls and women separate based on biological sex at birth. Idaho passed its law in 2020. It says only athletes assigned female at birth can compete on female teams in public schools and colleges. West Virginia enacted a similar law in 2021. It targets a single middle school track athlete named Becky Pepper-Jackson, who is transgender.

Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman from Idaho, sued over that state's law. She wanted to join her college swim team. Both women take hormone treatments and puberty blockers. These steps lower their testosterone levels. Lower courts stepped in. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Idaho's law breaks the Constitution's equal protection clause. It said the law singles out transgender athletes and requires invasive checks on girls' teams but not boys'. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond blocked West Virginia's law. That court found it violates Title IX, the federal law against sex discrimination in schools that get government money.

Twenty-seven other states now have laws like these. About half the states let transgender girls compete on girls' teams. The other half do not. Nationwide, estimates put the number of transgender high school athletes at around 122,000. That is just over 1% of the more than 8 million teens who play school sports.

The arguments came after years of growing debate. Women's sports have expanded greatly over the past 50 years thanks to Title IX. Many female athletes and groups worry that transgender girls, who went through male puberty, keep physical edges like strength and speed. Others say hormone therapy removes those advantages. Science on the matter remains unclear.

Key Details

Idaho's top lawyer, Alan Hurst, told the justices the laws sort athletes by biological sex. He said sex ties to traits like muscle mass that affect sports. The goal is to give girls fair chances against other girls.

Lawyers for Hecox and Pepper-Jackson pushed back. Kathleen Hartnett spoke for Hecox. Joshua Block represented Pepper-Jackson. They said Title IX and the Constitution protect all students. Their clients lack high testosterone due to medical treatment. Hartnett noted that a bigger frame without matching muscle power might even disadvantage them.

Justices' Questions Show Split

Most conservative justices leaned toward the states. Chief Justice John Roberts asked if a sex-based rule is the same as targeting transgender status. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a father of two athlete daughters, pointed to divided state approaches.

"Given that half the states are allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country?" – Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted trans boys can play on boys' teams. She questioned if the laws discriminate based on transgender status. Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns from female athletes about fair play. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote a past ruling against bias toward transgender workers, showed some sympathy but highlighted scientific questions about hormone effects.

The three justices named by Democratic presidents took the challengers' side. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked why someone without typical male advantages after treatment could not challenge the law.

"This law is treating someone who is transgender but who does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have the same threat to physical competition and safety." – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

A lawyer for the Trump administration, Hashim Mooppan, said Title IX lets schools use biological sex. He argued medical treatments do not change that.

The Idaho case might be moot. Hecox graduated from college without swimming. But the court heard it anyway.

What This Means

A ruling could shape sports rules across the country. If the court sides with the states, more bans may spread. Schools in states without laws might add them. This would limit transgender girls to boys' teams or no teams at all. Female athletes in those states could see more level fields, as supporters argue.

If the court rules for the challengers, states with bans would need to lift them or rewrite them. Teams might include transgender girls who meet hormone rules. This could spark more lawsuits over fairness. Half the states already allow participation, so change might come slowly.

The decision will not settle all science debates. Questions linger on how much hormone therapy offsets puberty effects. Puberty blockers started young might limit advantages more than later treatments. Experts disagree on data for teens.

Kavanaugh noted harms to girls who miss teams or medals. Alito asked if those girls are wrong to feel cheated. Gorsuch wondered if states must prove no edge remains.

Lower courts might get cases back for more fact-finding. This could narrow the impact. A broad ruling for states would set a clear line: biological sex decides team placement. One for challengers might require case-by-case looks at each athlete.

Sports groups watch closely. The growth of girls' sports hangs in balance, as Kavanaugh said. Transgender rights groups call the bans blanket discrimination. State leaders say they protect opportunities won over decades.

The court plans to rule by late June. Until then, the laws stay blocked in Idaho and West Virginia. Other states enforce theirs.