Image Source: Nina Totenberg
Key Takeaways:
- The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases related to transgender girls and women participating in women’s sports at publicly funded schools.
- 27 states have enacted laws barring transgender participation in sports, citing concerns about fairness and competitive advantage.
- Opponents of these laws argue that they discriminate based on sex and violate federal law and the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
- The cases involve a college student in Idaho and a middle school student in West Virginia, both of whom are barred from participating in women’s sports due to state laws.
- The Supreme Court’s decision could have broader implications for transgender rights and the interpretation of federal law.
Introduction to the Debate
The Supreme Court is set to dive back into the culture wars with oral arguments in two cases that test laws banning transgender girls and women from participating in women’s sports at publicly funded schools. Transgender participation in sports has become a flashpoint in both politics and law, with 27 states enacting laws to bar transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. Supporters of these laws argue that they are needed to ensure fairness in athletic competition and to prevent athletes whose assigned sex at birth was male from having an unfair advantage in women’s sports. As West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey notes, "Biological differences between men and women matter on the field."
The Personal Stories Behind the Cases
For athletes at every level, the issue is deeply personal. One of the cases involves Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old transgender girl from West Virginia who was barred from competing in school sports due to a state law. Becky says she knew from a young age that she was a girl and began presenting herself as a girl in third grade. She joined the girls’ running team in school and later switched to shot put and discus, where she started winning ribbons. As she notes, "They were all very supportive because, I mean, we were in the summer of third grade. It was just about having fun." However, her coach eventually told her she was too slow to make the middle school cross-country team, and she was forced to find a new sport.
The Arguments Against Transgender Participation
McCuskey argues that Becky’s participation in women’s sports is unfair because of her biological advantages. "By the time she was a high school freshman, at age 13 or 14, she is the third-best shot putter in the entire state. And that includes 15, 16, and 17-year-olds, and 18-year-olds." He also points to examples of boys outperforming girls in various sports, such as swimming. However, Becky’s lawyer, Josh Block, counters that there are always winners and losers in sports, and that physical advantages are not unique to transgender athletes. As Block notes, "Why is Michael Phelps so good? Because he has genetic mutations that give him larger arm spans. All the really elite athletes have physical attributes that make them very different from a typical person."
The Broader Implications
The cases before the Supreme Court have broader implications for transgender rights and the interpretation of federal law. Block argues that the court’s decision could be punitive for trans individuals overall, and that the Trump administration’s executive orders and lawsuits against states that allow transgender participation in sports have created a hostile environment for trans athletes. As Block notes, "The elephant in the room is Trump and his executive orders. The ground is shifting from protecting folks in red states to protecting folks in blue states from the federal government." West Virginia Attorney General McCuskey dismisses these concerns, arguing that the case is only about sports and that the court should not consider broader issues. However, John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that the case is about more than just sports, saying, "It’s about whether those who support the gender ideology movement are going to be allowed to continue harming children, women, and adults."
The Path Forward
The Supreme Court has several options for how to approach these cases, and the path it chooses will have significant implications for transgender rights and the interpretation of federal law. As William and Mary law professor Jonathan Adler notes, "There’s a real question whether the court will confine what it says to the specific context of sports where there’s always some inherent line-drawing that may seem arbitrary, or whether it’s going to do something more broad." The court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences for transgender athletes and the broader LGBTQ+ community, and will likely be closely watched by advocates on both sides of the issue. As the court considers these cases, it will be important to remember the personal stories behind the debate, including that of Becky Pepper-Jackson, who simply wants to be able to participate in sports and be treated with dignity and respect.
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/13/nx-s1-5648524/supreme-court-trans-women-school-sports
