As Amy wrote earlier this morning, the Supreme Court ruled to protect women’s sports from transgender infiltration. This won’t be the last time, but, for now, let’s take the win:
On January 13, the Supreme Court heard two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that both deal with the same issue, namely state laws that prohibit males from participating in women's and girls' sports even if they identify as transgender.
Little v. Hecox is the case out of Idaho, stemming from a 2020 law called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act (HB 500). That act bars 'trans women' and 'trans girls' from female athletic teams in public K-12 schools and colleges. Lindsay Hlcox, a male, sued after being barred from joining Boise State University's women's cross-country and track teams. Helcox claimed the legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. is a similar case. Following West Virginia's enactment of the Save Women's Sports Act (HB 3293), which requires public school and college teams to be designated based on biological sex. It bars males from girls' and women's teams in secondary schools and colleges. The mother of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a male, sued on his behalf on similar grounds.
The questions before the Court dealt with whether or not Title IX prohibits states from designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex and whether such legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of women and girls.
And yes, there were some meltdowns on the major news networks. On ABC, legal contributor James Sample doesn’t seem to grasp biological issues.
Recommended
ABC News legal contributor James Sample frets the SCOTUS ruling against transgenderism on women’s sports will lead to “exclusion” as “an unavoidable consequence”....
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026
“Justice Kavanaugh, who is himself an addition to a Supreme Court justice, a sports coach of his own, coaches,… pic.twitter.com/LX4ngiBklD
Justice Kavanaugh, who is himself an addition to a Supreme Court justice, a sports coach of his own, coaches, daughters in girls basketball, for example, is trying to be, I think, respectful there and certainly pointing out that no one deserves to be ostracized. But there will be some exclusion that will occur as a result of this, and that is, to some extent an unavoidable consequence of the ruling
No kidding, James—there are only two sexes. Deal with it. These are facts. This is science, and biological males competing in women’s sports is worse than blood doping or steroid use. It’s wrong, and it’s cheating.
On CBS, Major Garrett went on a strange tangent about how science is progressing, suggesting there should be a foundation of hope for those who believe men can or should compete in women’s sports.
CBS’s Major Garrett implies those who support transgenderism shouldn’t lose hope after today’s SCOTUS ruling b/c the science “is an evolving debate” about “a perceived threat of competitive imbalance,” comparing their fight to what gay people went through until the Supreme Court… pic.twitter.com/iOK9muHaY3
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026
And the Court said in its syllabus this is still subject to scientific and medical debate. All of these issues related to transgenderism. But right now, the Court is saying states have a valid and rational interest to put some limits, some protections for safety and competitive fairness in the legal code. But the Court is acknowledging something that we should remind ourselves. This is an evolving debate right now. It is in a very definite hesitant toward transgender rights space. I would just remind our audience there was a time in our country in the late 1990s and early 2000 when many states, most states in our country, constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. We are in a different place on that issue now. That debate and all the human rights issues underneath that evolved over time. I’m not predicting that for transgenderism, but I’m saying that is something that our country went through on an issue that seemed to be in the late 1990s and early 2000 settled, and it became unsettled because the Supreme Court and a cultural reevaluation of what same-sex marriage means in this country, we might see that in transgender space, we are not seeing it now. And the Court is giving states latitude to impose some limits to protect those engaged in sports right now from a perceived threat of competitive imbalance or unfairness in that space.”
NBC News also had a conniption fit:
INSANE: NBC’s Craig Melvin offers a trigger warning for trans people watching...
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026
“Just a quick note here. The terms that we’re using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent.… pic.twitter.com/Hx15swCfJ6
LAME: NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell laments President Trump has “boil[ed]” transgenderism “down into bumper sticker language” when “it’s obviously much more complex,” and “an area of American life where there are very deeply personal issues, especially when it’s involving minors” and… pic.twitter.com/VMMvNDprDx
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026
This isn’t a popular issue, but the media in their bubbles likely think the public is with them. They are not, so vent a bit, but no one cares about the fallout from this case.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member