Ask Onix
Supreme Court justices signal support for state bans
During Tuesday's oral arguments, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices appeared inclined to uphold state laws prohibiting transgender women and girls from competing in female school sports teams. The cases involve students from Idaho and West Virginia challenging bans that require sports teams to be designated based on sex assigned at birth.
Key arguments presented
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst defended the state's ban, arguing that sex-based classifications in sports are justified by physiological differences such as muscle mass, bone density, and lung capacity. "Sex is what matters in sports," he stated, emphasizing that these advantages correlate strongly with athletic performance.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the court's conservative members, questioned the urgency of a nationwide ruling while states remain divided on the issue. "Half the states allow transgender athletes to participate, and half do not," he noted. "Why should the court constitutionalize this debate while uncertainty remains?"
Plaintiffs seek narrow ruling
The court's three liberal justices and attorneys for the transgender athletes pushed for a limited decision-or no ruling at all. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student at Boise State University, has since withdrawn from her lawsuit, prompting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to question why the case hadn't been dismissed.
Hecox's lawyer, Kathleen Hartnett, argued that if the court addressed the merits, it should distinguish between transgender athletes who suppress testosterone and those who do not. She maintained that allowing participation without an "unfair biological advantage" would not undermine women's sports.
"That would undermine the entire point of separate sports in the first place, which was to allow women to have a place to thrive, to be strong, to win."
Kathleen Hartnett, Attorney for Lindsay Hecox
Legal and social context
Lawyers for both sides acknowledged the small number of affected individuals. In West Virginia, Becky Pepper-Jackson, now 14, remains the sole plaintiff challenging her state's ban after her parents filed suit in 2021.
Idaho's attorney, Alan Hurst, argued that transgender individuals have not faced the same historical discrimination as Black Americans or women, citing laws like cross-dressing bans as examples of general restrictions rather than targeted civil rights violations.
Political and public opinion backdrop
A January 2025 New York Times/Ipsos poll found nearly all Republicans and nearly 70% of Democrats oppose allowing transgender female athletes to compete in women's sports. The issue became a focal point of former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, and his administration has since rolled back protections for transgender individuals, including military service bans and pressure on states to restrict transgender athletes.
Last year, the Supreme Court's conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-transition treatments for minors, a decision some legal experts view as indicative of the court's stance on transgender rights in sports.
What's next
The court is expected to issue its ruling in June. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is pursuing a separate lawsuit against California's policy allowing transgender athletes to compete, setting the stage for further legal battles.
