January 13, 2026
Supreme Court hears transgender athlete ban challenges
Court weighs Equal Protection versus state authority over school sports
👨⚖️Judicial Review✊Civil Rights📜Constitutional Law
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026, in challenges to state laws banning transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams in Idaho and West Virginia. The conservative majority appeared likely to uphold the bans, with at least five justices signaling support for the restrictions during arguments. Challengers argued the laws violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, while states contended the bans preserve equal opportunities and safety for cisgender women and girls by maintaining sex-based eligibility. The cases involve Lindsay Hecox challenging Idaho's law and B.P.J.'s mother challenging West Virginia's ban. Twenty-seven other states have enacted similar restrictions. The Court is expected to issue a decision by June 2026, which will establish nationwide precedent on transgender athletes' rights. Idaho adopted its law in 2020, becoming the first state to implement such restrictions. West Virginia followed in 2021.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, in two consolidated cases challenging state laws that ban transgender women and girls from competing on female school sports teams. The cases are Little v. Hecox (challenging Idaho's law) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (challenging West Virginia's ban).
During arguments, the Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared likely to uphold the state bans, with at least five justices signaling skepticism toward the constitutional challenges. This suggests the Court may rule that states can prohibit transgender athletes from teams aligning with their gender identity without violating federal law.
Challengers argued the bans violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on transgender status and sex stereotypes, and violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. Lower courts had ruled these bans unconstitutional under both provisions.
States defended the laws by arguing they are based on biological sex differences rather than transgender identity, and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for cisgender women and girls. State attorneys claimed the bans protect fairness and safety in women's sports by maintaining sex-based eligibility criteria.
The Idaho case involves Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who challenged the state's ban on her participation in college athletics. The West Virginia case involves B.P.J., a transgender high school student whose mother sued after her daughter was barred from the girls' track team. Both challengers experienced direct harm from the exclusionary policies.
Twenty-seven other states beyond Idaho and West Virginia have enacted similar bans on transgender athletes in school sports. The Supreme Court's ruling will establish nationwide precedent affecting these laws and potentially hundreds of transgender student-athletes across the country. The Court is expected to issue its decision by June 2026.
As of December 2024, the NCAA reported fewer than 10 transgender athletes were competing in college sports nationwide. Despite the small numbers, the issue has become a major political flashpoint, with Republican-led states enacting bans as part of broader efforts to restrict transgender rights in education, healthcare, and public life.
👨⚖️Judicial Review✊Civil Rights📜Constitutional Law
People, bills, and sources
Neil Gorsuch
Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
John Roberts
Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
Sonia Sotomayor
Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
Chase Strangio
ACLU Attorney
Josh Turner
Idaho Solicitor General
Samuel Alito
Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
Lindsay Little
Plaintiff, Idaho Case
B.P.J.
Plaintiff, West Virginia Case (Minor, Name Sealed)
What You Can Do
1
understanding
Read the oral argument transcripts to understand competing constitutional arguments
The Supreme Court publishes full oral argument transcripts within hours. Reading them helps citizens understand the legal reasoning and predict outcomes.
2
civic action
Submit amicus brief supporting transgender student athletes' Equal Protection arguments
Civil rights organizations, medical associations, and educational groups can file friend-of-the-court briefs before the Court's March 2026 deadline.
Organizations interested in filing amicus briefs should:
Key legal arguments to support:
- Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination based on transgender status
- State bans categorically exclude students without individualized assessment
- No evidence of widespread harm to cisgender athletes from transgender participation
- Bostock reasoning applies to Equal Protection analysis in educational settings
Evidence to cite:
- Transgender athletes represent less than 1% of high school athletes nationwide
- State athletic associations in 23 states allow transgender participation without documented harm
- Medical evidence on individual variation in athletic ability within all categories
Filing deadline: Amicus briefs due 7 days after respondent's brief (typically March 2026).
Contact the Supreme Court Clerk for specific filing procedures and deadlines.
3
civic action
Contact state education departments to advocate for inclusive sports policies
State education agencies and athletic associations set policies for school sports. Citizen advocacy can influence these policies regardless of Court ruling.
When contacting state education officials:
Key points to make:
- Transgender students deserve equal access to educational opportunities including sports
- Policies should allow individualized assessment rather than categorical exclusion
- Medical evidence supports case-by-case evaluation of competitive advantage
- Inclusive policies work successfully in 23 states without harming cisgender athletes
Ask about:
- Current state policy on transgender athlete participation
- Process for policy review and public comment
- Data on transgender athlete participation and any reported issues
Request: Adopt policies allowing transgender students to participate consistent with their gender identity after appropriate medical evaluation.
Provide your contact information for follow-up.