The U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws protecting women’s sports from trans-identifying men on Tuesday. The ruling was 6-3 in the reasoning along ideological lines.
The decision stems from Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which dealt with challenges brought against Idaho and West Virginia’s laws ensuring fairness for female athletes. As The Federalist previously reported, legal specialists, female athletes, and Republican attorneys general “have all highlighted how males’ distinct biological advantage over women puts them at a competitive advantage over female athletes and imposes physical risks to their safety.”
Writing for the majority in B.P.J., Justice Brett Kavanaugh ruled that state laws permitting schools to “determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex” do not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause or Title IX. He emphasized that “[s]eparate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”
“The two States here — along with 25 other States, the IOC, the USOPC, and the NCAA — have concluded at this time that women and girls should be allowed to compete for those life-changing opportunities on an equal playing field, without fear of physical injury from biological males or being forced to compete against biological males,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
While joining the majority opinion in full, Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurrence outlining two additional points. He reiterated that “transgender” is not a suspect class — a point that he and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett raised in the court’s Skrmetti decision last year — and underscored the importance of acknowledging biological reality.
“Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic …; it is binary; and ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ ‘boy’ and ‘girl,’ are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex,” Thomas wrote. “To use language to obscure reality — to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’ — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens ‘as equal[s].'”
Justice Neil Gorsuch also authored a concurring opinion laying out his thoughts on two separate points. He argued that “Title IX does not clearly and unambiguously alert funding recipients that they are prohibited from sponsoring sports teams restricted to biological women or girls,” and that the court’s B.P.J. decision is supported by its 2020 Bostock ruling, which bizarrely codified so-called “gender identity” into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Writing on behalf of the court’s Democrat appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the judgement in part and dissented in part. While agreeing with the majority’s holding that “B. P. J.’s Title IX claim fails, although on a narrower basis than that on which the majority relies,” she argued that the court “at this stage of the litigation, gets the answer wrong” on shooting down B.P.J.’s equal protection claim.
“Playing sports can lead to benefits that are immeasurable, and many are understandably invested in ensuring that competition stays fair and safe,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent.”
While joining Sotomayor’s opinion in full, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote separately to advance trans ideology. Employing leftist jargon, she argued that “Title IX makes room for individuals to live in the gender they choose; it cares not just about sex assigned at birth but also about individuals’ ability to match (or not) their gender presentation to their gender identity.”
Tuesday’s decision received positive remarks from Alliance Defending Freedom, which backed Idaho and West Virginia in the legal battle to protect women’s sports. In a statement, ADF President Kristen Waggoner hailed the ruling as “a victory for every girl who refused to stay quiet in the face of injustice.”
“Men cannot be women, and no drug erases the male athletic advantage. I’m grateful to Attorneys General Raúl Labrador and JB McCuskey and our clients for their courage,” she said.
The court’s decision reverses the opinions of the lower courts and remands the cases back to their respective jurisdictions for further proceedings consistent with the majority opinion.
