Supreme Court makes ruling on trans athletes in women's sports
The Supreme Court has established a new nationwide precedent that allows states to protect women's sports.
The justices ruled in favor of West Virginia and Idaho on Thursday against trans athletes who sued to gain access to girls' sports. The states were backed by the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), while the trans athletes were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Cooley Legal.
In the highly-anticipated rulings on West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the high court upheld state laws requiring student-athletes to compete on sports teams that correspond with their biological sex at birth rather than their gender identity.
Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.
West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey praised the court's decision in a statement to Fox News Digital.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
"This is a monumental victory for every female athlete who has ever competed, or dreamed of competing, on a fair and safe playing field. Today's Supreme Court decision affirms what common sense and the law have long made clear: states have the right to designate sports teams based on biological sex, not gender identity. Without that delineation, Title IX is turned on its head and decades of hard-fought progress to advance female athletes is erased," McCuskey said.
"I am immensely proud of my team for not only getting this issue before the Court but for delivering sound and successful arguments. This landmark victory will give all states, not just West Virginia, the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come."
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador echoed McCuskey's statement.
"Today’s decision is a victory for common sense, fairness, and the countless girls and women who dedicate themselves to athletics. Idaho led the nation by becoming the first state to protect women’s sports, and I’ve never wavered in defending that law," Labrado said.
"The Supreme Court has now confirmed that states can preserve fair competition and protect the opportunities that generations of women fought to secure. Every parent can rest assured that our law protects their daughters competing in Idaho."
West Virginia's "Save Women's Sports Act" and Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" were at the center of the fierce legal battle.
Those state laws had been blocked in recent years after trans athletes in West Virginia and Idaho successfully sued to challenge them. After years of failing to get past the court of appeals, the Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases last July. Now, after oral arguments in January, the laws will be protected.
The decisions mark a massive victory for "Save Women's Sports" advocates and conservative lawmakers who have passed state legislation on the issue. The ruling validates and protects the 27 other state laws that have been passed in recent years to ban biological males from women's sports.
The transgender plaintiffs were Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete who sought to run women's track and cross-country at Boise State University, and Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender youth athlete in West Virginia, who sued the state while in middle school in 2021, before recently winning a girls' track and field state championship in shot put in May.
During oral arguments, attorneys for both trans athletes had questionable moments.
Pepper-Jackson's attorney, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), suggested that "sex" should not be defined legally. Block then fled questioning when asked to elaborate why after the hearing.
"I really urge the court not to do it on the definition of sex argument," Block originally said during the hearing.
CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE SWIPES AT DOJ IN TRANS SPORTS CASE: 'I DON'T THINK YOU'RE A PHD IN THIS STUFF'
But after grilling from Chief Justice John Roberts, who insisted sex "must mean something," Block conceded that sex should be defined by biology for the sake of this case, but this case only.
"I think for this case, you can accept, for the sake of this case, that we're talking about what they've termed to be biological sex," he said.
Fox News Digital asked Block what his definition of "sex" is, and he declined to give a definition, then fled further questioning.
Meanwhile Hecox's attorney, Kathleen Hartnett of Cooley Legal, admitted that Hecox athlete was "unlikely" to graduate in May after the firm previously argued that the athlete's May graduation would render a ruling about Hecox's athletic eligibility unnecessary.
"She's unlikely to graduate by May, as my friend said, but is hoping to make, through summer credits, to graduate in the fall," Hartnett said just months after the firm filed a suggestion of mootness, in which Hecox stated, "I am currently enrolled in classes that may allow me to graduate as early as May 2026."
Earlier in the hearing, Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst called out Hecox's claimed graduation date of May as "not possible" after the state's leadership did some back-door digging to discover Hecox's status.
"[Boise State] is a client of Idaho, we asked, and the university confirmed that it's unlikely to happen in the spring," Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal counsel John Bursch, who has worked with the Idaho and West Virginia AGs on the Supreme Court case, told Fox News Digital. "It just shows that throughout the case, Hecox has flipped back and forth."
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador said that exposing the discrepancy was "important" to their arguments Tuesday.
"I think it's important. I don't think it's the main issue in the case, but I think it's important," Labrador told Fox News Digital.
Now, more than half of the states in the U.S. are empowered to enforce the protection of women's sports without fear of a legal challenge.
However, there are still 23 states, including California, New York and Massachusetts, that don't have any such laws, and some of those have laws to protect trans athletes in girls' sports.