Twenty-seven states have passed laws banning transgender youth from participating in sports teams that align with their gender identity. And while these bans may vary in scope, they all rest on the same false claim that trans athletes pose a uniquely serious “threat” to women’s sports.
These claims were fully visible on January 13, 2026 as the The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in two cases, she challenged laws in West Virginia and Idaho that categorically ban transgender women and girls from playing with other women and girls in athletic programs.
Both cases raise the question of whether such bans violate federal and constitutional law. After nearly four hours of arguments in the two cases, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court appears prepared to rule that this is not the case.
Kleine v. Hecox
The first case heard on January 13 was Kleine v. Hecoxa case brought by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete who was banned from competing on the Boise State University women’s track and cross country teams under a 2020 Idaho law.
The law categorically bans transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports at all ages and levels of competition. It also requires invasive testing — for example, a health care provider examining a student’s reproductive anatomy — if an athlete’s gender is in question.
Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the Idaho law. Despite winning in the lower courts, Hecox asked the Supreme Court for permission in September dismiss her case as moot and decided to voluntarily dismiss her case in the lower court, citing concerns about the intense public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit. Hecox also pledged not to participate in women’s sports in Idaho.
West Virginia v. BPJ
The justices also heard arguments West Virginia v. BPJa case challenging West Virginia’s categorical ban on allowing transgender girls to participate in girls’ and women’s sports from high school through college.
Imani Gandy and I discussed the matter on Boom! Lawyer, but here’s a quick overview. Becky Pepper-Jackson is a transgender student who wanted to join her high school’s track and field team, but was banned. Pepper-Jackson, now in high school, challenged West Virginia’s 2021 anti-trans athletes Save the women’s sports lawarguing that it violated Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (which is the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding), as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
West Virginia law was blocked in 2024when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it violated Title IX. West Virginia’s Republican attorney general appealed Pepper-Jackson’s victory to the Supreme Court.
The calcification of rigid gender norms
A ruling in these cases is not expected until June, when the Court usually announces its high-profile opinions. But I am not optimistic that the decisions, once released, will support the trans students who brought them. The Court’s conservative majority made clear its hostility toward transgender minors last June it held up Tennessee has banned gender-affirming health care United States v. Skrmetti.
The risk in these sports-related cases goes beyond the very real and damaging harm that the students at the center of them – and other trans athletes – have faced and will continue to face. Conservative advocates use arguments against trans participation in sports to legislate the right’s harmful, essentialist gender norms.
That’s likely why Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justice Sam Alito, is urging attorney Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the organization representing the Pepper-Jackson minor, to create a rigid definition of sex, like under Title IX, based solely — or at least predominantly — on biological sex at birth.
Roberts insinuated that the ACLU wanted to define sex discrimination as “any characteristic that you think should be included in the definition of sex.”
“I’m not sure you have that kind of flexibility,” added Roberts, who I suspect will write the majority opinion endorsing these types of bans.
“The question then would be,” he continued, “What does Congress think the words mean?”
Block smartly didn’t take the bait. He pointed out that similar federal statutes such as Title IV, which prohibits racial discrimination, do not define race, yet aim to remedy racial discrimination. And so, Block argued, the Court does not need to define sex for Title IX to address sex discrimination.
It was one of the sharpest exchanges of the day.
As we saw inside Skremti, The conservative legal movement seeks to enshrine in law a specific and deeply conservative belief that biological sex fundamentally defines not only personal identity, but also a constitutional identity, where the state decides who is or is not a woman – and legislates their access to opportunity accordingly.
It is clear to me that the only strategy that progressive lawyers can pursue at this point in the Roberts Court is a strategy of harm reduction. Let the gears of justice turn as slowly as possible. Work towards narrow decisions that in fact leave big questions, such as whether sports bans for trans athletes constitute sex discrimination, unanswered for another term. The Court’s conservative, ideological grip leaves them no real alternative.
Frankly, that’s the best trans student advocates can accomplish in these cases, given the Court’s current ideological makeup.
This story is a condensed and updated version of an article originally published on December 12, 2025.
#Supreme #Court #uphold #ban #trans #athletes #analysis