The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging state laws that bar transgender girls from participating in girls' school sports teams. The cases, Little v. Hecox from Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J., focus on whether these bans violate the Constitution and Title IX. Justices appeared divided, with a majority seeming inclined to uphold the restrictions.
On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court convened for oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., addressing state-imposed bans on transgender girls competing on girls' teams in school sports.
In Hecox, Idaho's 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act prohibits transgender women and girls from women's and girls' teams at all levels, from elementary to college. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student, sued after the law blocked her participation. A district court issued a preliminary injunction, finding her equal protection claim likely to succeed, and the 9th Circuit affirmed, applying heightened scrutiny to the law's sex and transgender status classifications.
Idaho argued the case is moot since Hecox is no longer competing and that rational basis review applies, as the law protects opportunities for female athletes.
West Virginia's similar ban was challenged by B.P.J., a transgender middle schooler who has not undergone male puberty. The district court ruled for the state, but the 4th Circuit reversed on Title IX grounds, deeming the exclusion sex discrimination, and remanded the equal protection claim for further review.
During arguments, states framed the laws as neutral sex-based classifications excluding biological males, not targeting transgender status. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned if such classifications necessarily implicate transgender status. Justice Amy Coney Barrett showed interest in Title IX's allowance for sex-separated sports. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan probed broader implications, with Kagan asking if the states' approach eliminates as-applied challenges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized individualized scrutiny, arguing plaintiffs should show the rule's rationale fails in their case.
The arguments suggest a majority favors upholding the bans on narrow doctrinal grounds, distinguishing from the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision that extended sex discrimination protections to transgender people under Title VII. This shift reflects evolving political context, including over 2,500 anti-trans bills since 2021 and declining public support for trans rights, with 36% of Americans now believing society has gone too far in acceptance, up from 29% in 2018. Sports bans enjoy two-thirds approval, including 45% of Democrats.
Such rulings could limit transgender students' access to athletics without broad pronouncements on their rights under the Constitution or Title IX.
