The Supreme Court on Tuesday held arguments in two historic women’s sports cases. At issue is: Can trans athletes (biological males) compete on female school sports teams?

Join others crying out to the Lord day and night.

View Comments (4)

Both cases involve state bans on trans athletes participating on female-only teams in public schools. The two cases are:

Little v. Hecox: Lindsay Hecox is a male student at Boise State University who “identifies” as female. He’s challenging Idaho’s ban preventing transgender athletes from playing in female sports.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.: Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old biological male identifying as female, is challenging the state’s ban on boys playing in girls’ sports.

Idaho and West Virginia are among 27 states that prevent biological males from competing on female sports teams. Lower courts in these states struck down the bans as unconstitutional violations of Title IX prohibiting sex-based discrimination (West Virginia), as well as the equal protection laws of the Fourteenth Amendment (Idaho). The states appealed to the Supreme Court.

Title IX was put in place to protect access for females in sports by allowing teams to be separated by biological sex. The two sides have disagreed over whether discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX should be based on biological sex or include transgender identity.

Proponents of the ban say that they protect women’s opportunities and safety. Women’s rights are women’s rights, and they have the right to participate in their own sports without boys.

Opponents say that transgender athletes should be a special category and not defined by sex. If the Supreme Court rules to uphold the sports bans, they argue, then trans people could be excluded from all parts of school life.

In a concerning twist, Becky Pepper-Jackson has been accused of sexual harassment by a female teammate for making sexual threats to her regarding his male anatomy. According to the young girl’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom, the school has done very little to protect this girl in the locker room, and she is no longer playing sports because of this harassment.

What’s at Stake?

The legal issue in these cases is: Are these state bans discriminating based on sex? But perhaps the larger question the Supreme Court is being asked to decide is: Are biological males claiming to be female in fact females? The Supreme Court is being asked to rule on basic biological science. Will the Court uphold biological reality in these cases?

While the defendants are arguing discrimination, the states are arguing fairness and safety to young girls and women forced to play against a biological male.

As to the question of unfairness, stronger, faster biological males competing in female sports have taken 890 medals from female athletes, in addition, many young girls in middle and high school have been seriously injured playing against biological males pretending to be female.

The Supreme Court’s decision in these two cases could have a far-reaching impact on transgender policies across the U.S. Their decision could severely restrict the LGBTQ+ agenda regarding access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and other women-only spaces, or a decision for the trans athletes could open the floodgates to trans females being allowed everywhere.

The Justices could also rule narrowly to uphold the 27 state bans on trans athletes, or they could expand their ruling to gender identity discrimination claims in the military, government, education, health care, as well as designations on official documents such as passports and driver’s licenses.

If the Justices uphold the trans bans in the 27 states, what about the 23 states that allow trans athletes to play on female teams? Will they also require these 23 states to prohibit biological males from female teams?

With so much on the line, it’s no wonder that 77 amicus briefs have been filed in support of the state bans and in support of the trans athletes. Prominent athletes and coaches have signed on to these briefs for both sides.

U.S. lawmakers are also speaking out in support of one side or the other. In a list of politicians compiled by Fox News, which side a politician supports appears to break down along party lines – Republicans supporting women-only teams and Democrats supporting trans athletes.

Hearing Highlights

The hearing for both cases lasted for 3 ½ hours. First up was Little v. Hecox, the Idaho case, followed by the West Virginia case. Here are a few of the attorneys’ arguments and the Justices’ questions from both hearings…

West Virginia’s Solicitor General Michael Williams argued that challengers of the state’s ban are saying that “West Virginia schools can no longer designate teams by looking to biological sex. Instead, schools must place students on sports teams based on their self-identified gender. But that idea turns Title IX – a law Congress passed to protect educational opportunities for girls – into a law that actually denies those opportunities for girls. The court should not embrace that backwards logic.”

Idaho’s Solicitor General, Alan Hurst, began his opening argument by claiming that someone’s sex is linked to “countless athletic advantages”, such as muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity. “If women don’t have their own competitions, they won’t be able to compete,” he said.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is supporting a state’s right to ban trans athletes. DOJ lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, stated in oral arguments, “It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female.” He went on to say, “If you purport to separate based on biological sex (Title IX), but then you allow some biological males to play on the female team, you’ve undermined the justification for separating in the first place.”

Joshua Block and Kathleen Hartnett, attorneys for the trans athletes, P.B.J. and Hecox, respectively, said they did not want the justices to define biological sex as it relates to Title IX, even though Title IX’s legal foundation is based on biological sex.

Conservative Justices Sympathetic to Bans  

Chief Justice John Roberts stated that he views the trans athlete case differently from the 2020 case, Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court ruled that transgender people cannot be discriminated against at work. He doesn’t believe the workplace case applies to the sports cases. Justice Roberts also appeared skeptical of a transgender “exception to sex-based laws,” such as Title IX.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated, “One of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women’s and girls’ sports. And it’s inspiring,” He also noted the fact that the federal government, certain states, the NCAA governing body for college sports, and the U.S. Olympic Committee think that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will create unfairness. “For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal, or doesn’t make all-league, there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside,” he said.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Attorneys Block and Hartnett, “There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by trans athletes and competitions with them,” Alito said. “What do you say about them? Are they bigots? Are they deluded in thinking that they are subjected to unfair competition?”

While Attorney Hartnett said she did not believe these women are bigots, it’s not what the trans lobby claims. Any time girls and women stand up for themselves, forfeit a game or a match, or speak out against being forced to play against males, they are called bigots, haters, and transphobic.

Justice Clarence Thomas went even further in his comments, asking if there was “any difference between what the transgender athletes are seeking and a ‘lousy’ male tennis player who wants to try out for the women’s team who says, ‘There is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players.'”

Liberal Justices Support Trans Athletes

Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson asked why trans athletes couldn’t be judged on a case-by-case basis if a trans female would have an unfair advantage over an authentic female through testosterone monitoring.

Attorney Hartnett went so far as to claim that boys who are repressing their testosterone are at a “disadvantage in many ways, because you have a larger frame with weaker muscles and no testosterone.”

Idaho’s Solicitor General, Alan Hurst, called the ongoing testosterone monitoring of trans athletes “invasive, intrusive, and expensive.” Solicitor Generals Hurst and Williams also maintain that athletic advantages remain even after hormonal treatments, such as puberty blockers and testosterone-suppression hormone therapy.

DOJ attorney Mooppan argued that the justices can avoid addressing questions about whether taking drugs to suppress testosterone eliminates physical advantage for transgender women by focusing on biological sex. “Government regulations define separation in sports based on sex, based on biology, not based on circulating testosterone levels,” he said.

Decision by June

The consensus among legal pundits who read the Court’s “tea leaves” and take educated guesses based on the questions of the Justices is that the Court – at the very least – will uphold the states’ bans on trans athletes in female sports and rule that the trans athletes were not discriminated against under Title IX or the 14^th Amendment.

As to any expansion beyond that narrow ruling, we’ll have to wait and see. A decision is expected in June of 2026 and may or may not play a role in the mid-term elections.

When asked about the case, Chloe Cole, a young de-transitioner and strong advocate for bans against transgender treatments on minors, recently wrote an op-ed declaring…

“The only rights that are being violated are girls’ rights to compete fairly, without being forced to go up against boys. And states have a right — and a duty — to protect girls. For that matter, states have a duty to protect all children from transgender treatments of any kind. The Supreme Court has already given states the green light to keep kids safe from radical activism masquerading as medicine. Now the justices should extend that logic by protecting girls. Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about law. It’s about science and truth. And that’s why the Supreme Court must reject the transgender lie.”

Let’s Pray:

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32 (NIV)

Dear Lord, we thank you that you are sovereign over all the earth and have clearly defined biological sex as male and female. We pray that Your will be done in the cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. We pray that every Supreme Court Justice will seek Your will in their deliberations and acknowledge the truth of two sexes – male and female – as ordained by You.

We pray that the Court will uphold the states’ bans as constitutional, uphold Title IX to be exclusively biologically female, and end males competing in female sports. We pray that this ruling will cover all 50 states and not just the 27 with the bans.

We pray that you will protect the Supreme Court Justices from all harm, from any threats or violence, and from all spiritual attacks of the enemy. Reveal to them Your true justice, mercy, and salvation which is in Your Son, Jesus, who is our Supreme Judge.

We pray for Lindsay Hecox and Becky Pepper-Jackson. We pray that you will lift the blindness and confusion in rejecting their sex. We pray that they will embrace their identity in Christ and be set free from the chains of transgender ideology. Open their eyes, Lord, and the eyes of all who believe the transgender lie. We pray that they will turn from darkness to Your forgiving, healing, restoring, and redeeming light (Acts 26:18). In Jesus’ Name, Amen.

Share your prayers for the Supreme Court and about transgenderism below.

Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda’s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: Heather Diehl/Getty Images.