The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in two cases challenging state laws that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in women's sports at publicly funded educational institutions. These deliberations come amidst a broader legal and political discussion surrounding transgender rights, following previous Supreme Court rulings that have both expanded and limited protections for transgender individuals. Twenty-seven states currently have laws restricting transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports.
Supreme Court Considers Transgender Athlete Bans
The cases under review are Little v. Hecox, which involves an Idaho college student who was barred by state law from trying out for a university women's track team, and West Virginia v. BPJ, concerning a middle school student in West Virginia prevented by state law from competing in school sports. State officials from Idaho and West Virginia argue that schools should be permitted to separate athletes based on biological sex to ensure fairness and safety in competition. Conversely, opponents contend these laws constitute sex-based discrimination and violate federal law, including Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Precedent and Evolving Legal Landscape
The current cases build upon a backdrop of prior Supreme Court decisions and executive actions related to transgender rights:
- Bostock v. Clayton County (2020): The Court ruled that federal employment protections against sex discrimination extended to gay and transgender employees. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and four liberal justices, reasoned that treating a transgender man differently from a man assigned male at birth constituted discrimination "because of sex."
- United States v. Skrmetti (2023): The Court upheld state bans on hormone treatment and other medical care for transgender youths. The 6-3 majority rejected arguments of sex discrimination, classifying the bans as tied to age and medical use. Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with transgender rights in Bostock, authored the majority opinion in Skrmetti, and Justice Gorsuch also joined the majority. Dissenting justices contended Skrmetti was inconsistent with Bostock.
- Other Related Rulings and Actions: The Court has also upheld state laws banning hormone and other treatments for minors with gender dysphoria, left a prior presidential order regarding transgender military personnel in place, and required passport applicants to list only their assigned sex at birth.
Arguments Presented
During the oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ, both sides presented their positions:
- Proponents of the Bans: State officials argue that biological differences between males and females provide individuals assigned male at birth with inherent advantages in athletic competition, which could compromise fairness in women's sports. They assert that the case is specifically about sports and the importance of preserving competitive athletics for "biological girls." Some positions also maintain that Bostock's principles were limited to employment under Title VII and do not extend to school sports.
- Opponents of the Bans: Lawyers representing the transgender athletes contend that these laws discriminate based on sex. They argue that natural physical advantages exist across all athletes regardless of transgender status, citing examples of genetic attributes among elite athletes. Opponents also express concern that these laws could have broader punitive implications for transgender individuals and might lead the Court to subject transgender rights to a lower level of legal scrutiny.
Judicial Perspectives During Oral Arguments
Members of the Court's conservative bloc questioned the scope of legal protections for transgender individuals in these cases:
- Chief Justice John Roberts sought to distinguish the current sports cases from Bostock, suggesting that a "sex-based classification" regarding sports eligibility might not necessarily involve transgender status and therefore might not be discriminatory.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a prior related case, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas, opined that transgender people may not constitute a "suspect class" for equal protection purposes, suggesting that transgender sports bans could be constitutional.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the implications of expanded transgender protections for women's and girls' sports, indicating a willingness to allow states flexibility in regulating women's sports.
Broader Context and Potential Implications
The Court's consideration of these cases takes place amid several intersecting trends:
- Legislative Actions: Since 2021, state lawmakers have introduced over 2,500 bills targeting transgender individuals, with more than 1,000 introduced in the last year alone, covering areas such as education, public facilities, healthcare, and athletics.
- Public Opinion: A February 2024 Pew Research Center survey indicates a decline in public support for some legal protections for transgender people since 2021, with increased support for policies such as sports bans. The survey found that two-thirds of voters, including 45 percent of Democrats, support sports bans.
- Court Composition: The confirmation of Justice Barrett in late 2020 solidified a six-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
- Potential Impact: Legal observers suggest the Court could issue a narrow ruling specifically addressing the context of sports or a broader decision with more significant implications for transgender rights generally.