Image Source: Carolina Journal
Key Takeaways:
- The US Supreme Court appears poised to uphold state laws that bar transgender women and girls from competing on female school sports teams.
- A majority of the justices seem skeptical of challenges to these laws and more receptive to the states’ position.
- The Court’s decision could limit the power of federal regulators to impose new interpretations of Title IX on states.
- A ruling favoring the states would signal that state legislatures have the authority to set rules for school athletics, even when those rules draw distinctions based on biological sex.
- The decision could have direct relevance for North Carolina, which has already taken steps to define eligibility for school sports based on biological sex.
Introduction to the Supreme Court Case
The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in two cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which involve state laws that define eligibility for girls’ and women’s sports based on biological sex rather than gender identity. As noted in the article, "a majority of the justices seemed skeptical of the challenges to these laws and more receptive to the states’ position." The cases, which originated in Idaho and West Virginia, have sparked a national debate about the role of state legislatures in regulating school sports and the interpretation of Title IX, a federal statute that prohibits sex discrimination in education.
The Oral Arguments
During the oral arguments, the justices pressed lawyers challenging the bans to explain how existing federal law compels states to treat gender identity the same as biological sex in sports. As the article states, "there was notable skepticism toward the argument that Title IX, a decades-old law designed to expand athletic opportunities for women, was meant to eliminate sex-based distinctions in competitive athletics." The justices also questioned whether courts, rather than state legislatures, should be making policy judgments in an area involving complex questions of biology, fairness, and youth sports. According to the article, "some justices appeared cautious about issuing an overly broad ruling that would impose a nationwide standard, hinting instead at a narrower decision that leaves room for state discretion."
Implications for North Carolina
If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the Idaho and West Virginia laws, the decision would have direct relevance for North Carolina, which has already taken steps to define eligibility for school sports based on biological sex. As the article notes, "in 2023, North Carolina enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, over then-Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto, requiring that participation on middle school, high school, and collegiate athletic teams be determined by sex at birth, with separate teams designated for males and females (expressly co-ed)." A ruling favoring the states would signal that state legislatures, not federal agencies or courts, have the authority to set rules for school athletics, even when those rules draw distinctions based on biological sex.
Limiting Federal Power
A decision in favor of the states could also limit the power of federal regulators to impose new interpretations of Title IX on states. As the article states, "federal agencies and progressive activists have argued that Title IX requires schools to treat gender identity the same as sex in athletics." However, the Supreme Court’s skepticism toward this view suggests that it is unlikely to allow administrative agencies to rewrite the meaning of a statute passed decades ago without clear direction from Congress. This would mean fewer mandates coming from Washington and more room for state-level decision-making.
State Autonomy
Rather than navigating shifting federal guidance and fear of litigation, North Carolina would be able to rely on state law when organizing teams and competitions. As the article notes, "that kind of predictability is especially important in youth sports, where rules need to be clear, consistent, and enforceable." Even if the Court issues a narrow ruling, the overall message is likely to favor state autonomy. North Carolina would remain free to maintain its current law, amend it through the legislative process, or revisit it based on the preferences of voters and lawmakers — not under pressure from sweeping judicial mandates.
Conclusion
A final ruling is expected later this term, likely in early summer. Whatever the precise scope of the decision, the arguments strongly suggest that the Supreme Court is unlikely to strike down these laws wholesale and that states will retain broad authority to regulate school sports based on biological sex. As the article concludes, "the case is not just about sports policy, but about who gets to decide difficult social questions in a federal system." The decision will have significant implications for the future of school sports and the role of state legislatures in regulating these activities.
https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/what-scotus-decision-on-girls-sports-might-mean-for-nc/
