U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Transgender Women Athlete Cases
(Editor’s Note: This is a short article from Title IX Alert’s Editor in Chief Ellen Staurowksy. It appeared in the summer Alert, a free subscription publication produced by Hackney Publications.)
By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Senior Writer and Professor, Sports Media, Ithaca College, staurows@ithaca.edu
On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether state laws that categorically deny transgender girls and women the opportunity to try out and participate on athletic teams that align with their gender identities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. With 27 states having passed transgender athlete bans, the Court’s decisions on these matters could have far-reaching effects (Movement Advancement Project, 2025).
The two cases that will be taken up by the Court are challenges brought by transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho law was challenged by a first-year Boise State University transgender athlete who was barred from trying out for women’s cross country team because of HB 500 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act”. Winning an injunction at the District Court level, Hecox was able to seek a spot on BSU’s women’s cross country team but failed to qualify, participating instead on the University’s club women’s running and soccer teams. The district court’s injunction was upheld by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the Court was unpersuaded by claims that transgender women have physiological advantages that overpower those of cisgender women.
The girl who challenged the Save Women’s Sports Act in West Virginia v. B.P. J. was 11 years old when the law was passed in 2021. Born male, she had identified as a girl at a young age and had been undergoing puberty-delaying treatment and was on estrogen. After her middle school principal informed her that she would not be permitted to try out for teams because of the law, she sought and received a temporary injunction that allowed her to participate on the girls’ track and cross country teams in 2022. The temporary injunction was lifted by a district court judge in 2023, reasoning that “The state is permitted to legislate sports rules on this basis because sex, and the physical characteristics that flow from it, are substantially related to athletic performance and fairness in sports” (B.P.J. v. West Virginia, 2023, p.18-19) A request for emergency relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was granted, paving the way for B.P.J. to participate in track and field in 2023. West Virginia countered with a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene but that request was denied. Considering the case on the merits in April, 2024 the 4th Circuit issued a split opinion, with the majority finding that offering B.P.J. the opportunity to try out and compete on boys’ teams was “no real choice at all” and that her exclusion from girls’ teams would be a violation of Title IX (West Virginia v. B.P. J., 2024, p. 38).
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases occurred just two weeks after its ruling in Tennessee v. Skrmetti, where Tennessee’s law that bans gender-affirming care for minor children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria was upheld. In forthcoming editions of Title IX Alert we’ll explore the issues further and what these cases mean moving forward.
References
B.P.J. v. West Virginia. Memorandum and order. Case 2:21-cv-00316. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Charleston Division. (2023). https://www.aclu.org/cases/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education?document=Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order#legal-documents
Movement Advancement Project. (2025). Bans on Transgender Youth Participation in Sports. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/youth/sports_participation_bans
U.S. Supreme Court of the United States (2025). West Virginia, et al., Petitioners v.
- P. J., By Her Next Friend and Mother, Heather Jackson. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-43.html
U.S. Supreme Court of the United States (2025). Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho, et al., Petitioners v. Lindsay Hecox, et al.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-38.html
West Virginia v. B.P.J. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1078 (2024).