Reflections on SCOTUS and transgenderism in women’s sports

On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments in what promise to be blockbuster rulings—Little v. Hecox from Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J.—over state laws banning males claiming to be “transgender” from participating in sports for females.

Given the expected far-reaching consequences of Hecox and B.P.J., this column briefly reviews their backgrounds before highlighting selected comments from the Justices made during oral arguments. I then reflect on why the Court will probably uphold both laws and why its order will help preserve life’s natural order.

Little v. Hecox

Little v. Hecox challenged Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, the first state law banning “transgender” athletes from competing on teams for females in state-funded educational institutions from elementary school through colleges and universities.

Litigation began in 2020 when one such athlete, Lindsay Hecox, a biological male, now twenty-four, who did not qualify for Boise State University’s track and cross-country teams but competed at the club level, sued the governor, university, and others, challenging the law.

In August 2020, the federal trial court enjoined the Act’s enforcement as likely violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, under which individuals or groups who “are similarly situated should be treated alike.” On appeal in June 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the court thought that the law discriminated due to sex because athletes on teams for females, but not males, suffer “invasive sex verification procedures.”

The Ninth Circuit then refused to hear an en banc appeal before all of its active members.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J. a then-eleven, now fifteen-year-old biological male identifying as “transgender”, named Becky Pepper-Jackson, and his mother, challenged a 2021 law barring men from competing in women’s sports, West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act.

The federal trial court enjoined the law in 2021, allowing B.P.J. to compete on the middle school girls’ track and cross-country teams, but in January 2023 upheld the statute.

After the Supreme Court refused to intervene in April 2023 (with Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissenting), in April 2024, the Fourth Circuit reversed in favor of B.P.J., finding that the law violated Title IX. Under 1972’s Title IX, “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance by discriminating on the basis of sex….”

Later appeals

On September 2, 2025, Lindsay Hecox petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot after voluntarily moving to end the dispute by signing an agreement not to participate on women’s teams. On July 3, 2024, though, the Justices agreed to hear the appeals filed by Idaho and West Virginia.

At issue before the Supreme Court in Hecox is “[w]hether laws that seek to protect women’s and girls’ sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”

West Virginia v. B.J.P. addresses “1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.”

Oral arguments

During three hours of oral arguments starting with Hecox, the majority of Justices seemed poised to protect women by upholding the laws banning males claiming to be “transgender” from participating in sports for females. For example, when Justice Alito asked Hecox’s attorney, Kathleen Hartnett, whether she could define what it means to be a “boy or a girl or a man or a woman,” Hartnett was unable to give a cogent answer, suggesting that this was unnecessary.

Alito then essentially obliterated Hecox’s Fourteenth Amendment claim by asking Hartnett, who was unable to reply adequately, “how can you —how can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”

Discussing women’s sports in Hecox, Justice Kavanaugh said, “one of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women and girls’ sports,” under Title IX, a comment with which Hartnett agreed, basically inquiring why things should change by allowing men to compete under its provisions.

Kavanaugh added that females who are denied medals in favor of males suffer “a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside.” Also in Hecox, Chief Justice Roberts asked whether we need “an exception to the boy/girl distinction” in sports, suggesting that this was unnecessary.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett also raised questions demonstrating their support for the laws. Justice Barrett, in particular, pointed out in multiple exchanges that due to biological and strength differences, disputes of this nature involve males wanting to compete against females rather than the other way around because of their physical disparities impacting the fairness of competition.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett also raised questions demonstrating their support for the laws.

Not surprisingly, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown seemed to disfavor the laws. Justice Brown raised a novel observation in K.B.P., wondering if “[t]his is, like, second-order discrimination! Separating transgender women from cisgender women!” but failed to justify her comment.

Reflections and analysis

During COVID, supporters of mandatory experimental vaccines demanded that all “follow the science.” While in very rare exceptions, women are born with XX chromosomes and males with XY, trans-activists continue to ignore the biological truth. They push to allow males to compete with females despite their size and strength differences, thus placing women athletes at significant risk of injury at the hands of male competitors.

A well-publicized incident from North Carolina illustrated the risks female athletes face when competing against “transgender opponents”. Payton McNabb was badly injured when a spiked ball hit by a male claiming transgender status struck her in the head, causing her to suffer a serious concussion that ended her dream of playing volleyball in college. Sadly, proponents of transgenderism appear to have few concerns for the safety of female athletes.

In a June 2025 case from Tennessee, United States v. Skrmetti, which I wrote about in Catholic World Report, the Supreme Court upheld a law banning puberty blockers for minors claiming to be “transgender”, on which West Virginia’s law relied in part. In Skrmetti the Court reasoned that disputes “implicated ‘fierce scientific and policy debates’ that elected legislators are best able to resolve.” In so doing, West Virginia urged the Justices to “follow the science” by acknowledging that there are two sexes and to recognize (as it did in Skrmetti) that elected legislators responsible to voters are better suited to determine what is in the best interests of their residents than unelected judges who are far-removed from such day-to-day questions.

If (or when) the Supreme Court upholds the laws from Idaho and West Virginia, it would, by extension, safeguard the rights of women to participate safely in fair competitions against other females in twenty-five other states with similar statutes in place. It appears that the Justices will reject Hecox’s Title IX claims because, as West Virginia’s brief explained, “Title IX governs education, where biological differences are critical to athletic fairness. The Act designates sports based on biological sex—exactly what Title IX permits.”

Moreover, the Justices will probably reject B.P.J.’s equal protection claim because West Virginia’s law treats B.P.J. the same as other athletes insofar as it treats “transgender girls” the same as boys who do not identify as “transgender”.

Debates over transgenderism and athletics involve what are, at best, ironies and, at worst, absurdities.

For instance, as noted, during oral arguments, Hecox’s attorney, Kathleen Hartnett, was unable to define a woman even in arguing that her client suffered discrimination on the basis of sex. Further, during her confirmation proceedings, Justice Jackson, who favors allowing males to compete against females, could not define a woman in her exchange with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, responding she could not do so because “I’m not a biologist.”

It is of course absurd that a Supreme Court Justice who interprets the law and an attorney arguing in favor of allowing men to participate in sports for females cannot even define a woman.

When the Supreme Court rules in Hecox and B.P.J., probably in late June or early July, it will apparently preserve the natural order by protecting women’s sports as a haven for females. Such a judgment would be in line with the Judeo-Christian belief that “male and female [God] created them.”