High Court Considers Whether States Can Bar Biological Males From Female Athletics
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court heard more than three hours of oral arguments this week in two landmark cases that could reshape the future of women’s athletics nationwide, as the justices scrutinized state laws designed to protect female sports from biological males identifying as transgender.
The consolidated cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — challenge laws enacted in Idaho and West Virginia that restrict participation in female sports teams to biological females at public schools and universities. A ruling is expected by June 2026 and will directly impact at least 27 states that have passed similar legislation.
ReadMore
At issue is whether Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and, in West Virginia’s case, federal Title IX protections.
Defining Sex And Equal Protection
Throughout the hearing, the justices repeatedly returned to a fundamental question: how “sex” should be defined under the law, particularly in the context of athletics.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed attorneys on the absence of a clear legal definition, asking how courts are expected to apply equal protection principles without knowing what legally constitutes a male or female.
“What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” Alito asked, highlighting the practical implications for sex-based distinctions in sports.
Kathleen Hartnett, representing plaintiff “Lindsay” Hecox,a biological male who sought to compete in women’s sports while taking hormones, acknowledged that schools should maintain separate teams for males and females. However, Harnett argued Idaho’s law unfairly excludes a subset of males who attempt to suppress physical advantages through medical intervention.
“We do not have a definition for the court,” Hartnett conceded.
States Argue Laws Are Based On Biology, Not Identity
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst defended the law as a neutral, sex-based regulation grounded in biological reality, not gender identity.
“The law treats the sexes equally,” Hurst told the Court, explaining that all biological males, regardless of how they identify, are barred from female sports teams. Any disparate impact, he argued, stems from biological differences that directly affect athletic competition.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged that reasoning, suggesting the law treats transgender-identifying males differently than biological females. Justice Sonia Sotomayor further argued that excluding males from female sports is, by nature, a sex-based classification.
Hurst countered by pointing to widespread scientific agreement that males possess inherent physiological advantages in strength, speed, and endurance.
“No one disputes the scientific basis for separate women’s sports,” he said.
During rebuttal, Hurst cited data showing female athletes nationwide have lost hundreds of medals to biological males competing in women’s categories, arguing that without sex-based lines in sports, no such distinctions could survive constitutional scrutiny.
“Sports are assigned by sex because sex is what matters,” Hurst said. “If Idaho can’t enforce that line here, where biological differences are undeniable, then no sex-based protections can stand anywhere.”
Title IX And The Future Of Women’s Athletics
In arguments concerning West Virginia’s law, Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether “transgender” status constitutes a sex classification under Title IX. West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams responded that sex and gender identity are not legally interchangeable.
“The statute applies the same way to a biological boy identifying as a boy as it does to a biological boy identifying as a girl,” Williams said.
The U.S. Department of Justice also weighed in on behalf of the states. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan argued that gender identity is irrelevant to the legal analysis, emphasizing that the laws rely solely on biological sex.
“The regulations define separation based on sex, not hormone levels or medical interventions,” Mooppan explained. “Sex is understood in its traditional biological sense.”
Faith-Based Legal Advocacy Responds
Liberty Counsel submitted an amicus brief supporting both state laws, warning that redefining sex under Title IX could dismantle decades of protections for women and girls.
“Biological reality dictates that men and women are different,” said Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “These laws acknowledge reality so female athletes are not competitively, physically, and emotionally harmed.”
Staver added that allowing biological males into female sports would undermine the original purpose of Title IX.
“Permitting biological males in women’s athletics would erase women from sports altogether,” he said.
As the Court deliberates, the outcome could determine whether states retain the authority to draw sex-based distinctions in athletics — a decision with far-reaching legal, cultural, and moral implications for the nation.
