WASHINGTON, D.C – Today, the U.S Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated landmark cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J, about whether Idaho and West Virginia can ban gender-confused males from participating in female sports. The High Court is expected to deliver a ruling in the case by June 2026. The decision will likely have significant implications across the nation since at least 27 states have similar laws protecting women and girls. 

In Little v. Hecox, SCOTUS will review Idaho’s 2020 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” and in West Virginia v. B.P.J, it will review West Virginia’s 2021 “Save Women’s Sports Act,” both of which protect the safety and opportunities of female athletes by barring biological males from female competitive sports teams at public schools and universities.

The cases brought the Justices questions about whether both these statutes violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and whether West Virginia’s law violates the federal anti-discrimination statute Title IX.

The Justices heard both cases for over three and half hours, focusing their questions on the definition of sex under the law, the inherent differences and comparative advantages of males and females in athletics, and whether a sex-based classification is also a “transgender” classification for discrimination purposes. 

In addressing definitions, Justice Samuel Alito asked, “What is that definition, for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” Justice Alito sought clarity for how to apply Equal Protection in sports that necessitate sex-based distinctions. He posed the question to attorney Kathleen Hartnett, who represented “Lindsay” Hecox, a biological male taking hormones who had sought to play female sports in Idaho.

“We do not have a definition for the court,” Hartnett replied. While Hartnett conceded schools should have separate teams for males and females, she argued Idaho’s law “categorically” excludes a subset of biological males from female teams, such as those who take hormones in an attempt to mitigate their physical and competitive advantages.

However, Boise Solicitor General Alan Hurst defended Idaho’s law stating that it turns on sex alone in sports, not “transgender” status. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned SG Hurst that Idaho’s law treats sex and gender identity differently.

“It treats transgender woman differently than cis women doesn’t it?” asked Justice Jackson.

SG Hurst noted that the law “treats the sexes equally” because it bars males from female teams regardless of their gender identity. He stated the law does impact people disparately “because men who identify as women have a different reason for wanting to play women’s sports than biological females do.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor contended that “by nature” a male being excluded from a female sport is a sex classification.

“She doesn’t want to be the one male excluded,” said Justice Sotomayor, said referring to Hecox.

Regarding exclusion, SG Hurst noted that “no one disputes the scientific basis for separate women’s sports.” 

In his rebuttal, SG Hurst also explained that 600 women have lost 890 medals nationwide in 29 sports to biological males in female sports.

“We need a broader classification, and sex is the right one,” he said. “Bottom line, sports are assigned by sex because sex is what matters in sports…[and] where sports are concerned, men and women are obviously not the same. If Idaho can’t enforce a sex-based line here, in sports, where nobody disputes biological difference matter, then no line based on biological sex can survive constitutional scrutiny.”

In evaluating West Virginia’s law, Chief Justice John Roberts asked West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams whether “transgender” falls under sex classification. SG Williams stated that sex and “transgender” classifications are “not the same” under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

“The reality is if you apply the West Virginia statute to a biological boy identifying as a boy it applies in the very same way as biological boy identifying as a girl,” said SG Williams.

Arguing in both cases in favor of the Idaho and West Virgina laws, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Department of Justice Hashim Mooppan said gender identity is “wholly irrelevant” in these cases because it is biological sex keeping males off female sports teams and nothing else.

The simplest way to resolve the Equal Protection and Title IX issues in these cases is to view the regulations plainly, concluded Deputy SG Mooppan. He noted that the regulations allow for sex-segregated sports teams, and when those regulations use the word “sex,” they use it in the traditional reproductive biology sense independent of any medical procedures attempting to mitigate competitive advantages via hormone levels.

“The regs define separation based on sex, not based on circulating testosterone levels,” said Deputy SG Mooppan.

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief to the High Court stating that Title IX is based on sex, not gender identity, and any interpretation otherwise that prioritizes protections for gender identity could eliminate Title IX’s sex-based protections for women. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Biological reality dictates that men and women are different. These laws acknowledge reality so female athletes are not competitively, physically, and emotionally harmed by gender-confused males in their sports and private spaces. Title IX’s purpose is to provide more opportunities to women and girls. Permitting biological males in female sports would eviscerate the entire purpose of Title IX and erase women in athletics.”

Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.