Tipsheet

Experts Weigh in on SCOTUS Cases Involving Boys in Girls' Sports

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  January 15, 2026 2:00 PM

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases concerning men in women's sports: Little v. Hecox out of Idaho, and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Both cases center on whether or not state bans on "trans-identifying" boys competing in girls' school sports violate Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination in education or the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, because they focus on transgender status instead of biological sex. 

Oral arguments seemed to go well for those of us who oppose boys in girls' sports. Justice Alito dismantled the argument for allowing "trans-identifying" boys in girls sports.

"A school that has a boys', let's say, track team and a girls' track team...and a student who has the genes and the reproductive system of a male and had those at birth and has never taken puberty blockers, never taken female hormones, never had any gender-altering or affirming surgery says, nevertheless, I am a woman. That's who I am. Can the school say, 'No, you cannot participate on the girls' team'?" Alito asked.

"Yes, they can," the attorney replied.

"Is that person not a woman in your understanding?" Alito asked. "The person says I sincerely believe I am a woman, I am in fact a woman. Is that person not a woman?"

"I would respect their self-identity in addressing the person, but in terms of the statue, I think the question is, does that person have a sex-based biological advantage that's going to make it unfair for that person to be part of the women's team, and that's the rationale for the regulation," the attorney replied.

"The reason I'm asking has to do with discrimination on the basis of transgender status," Alito said. "So what you seem to be saying is, yes, it is permissible for the school to discriminate on the basis of transgender status."

Several experts weighed in on the oral arguments and what they mean for women's sports and sex-based rights.

"The lower courts embraced debunked theories, ignored biological reality, and undermined safety and fairness in women's sports. Even before puberty, boys have physical advantages over girls, distinctions that hormone interventions cannot erase and become even more pronounced post-puberty. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to affirm the biological truth of the sex binary—a scientific fact that no amount of political pressure or ideological bias can change," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb of Do No Harm, which hosted a rally outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments.

Alleigh Marré of American Parents Coalition said this is an opportunity for SCOTUS to put the issue to rest. “Males should never be allowed to compete in women’s sports or enter private spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms. Girls should not be forced to choose between stepping away from the sports they love or sacrificing their privacy, safety, and the promise of fair competition," Marré said. "Title IX was enacted to correct historic inequities and expand opportunities for women and girls, not to redefine them out of existence. The protections it guarantees are not unclear or optional. Now is the time for the Supreme Court to put this issue to rest, reaffirm the original intent of Title IX, and ensure that the next generation of girls inherits more opportunity, not less.”   

Maine Rep. Laurel Libby, who is also the Executive Director of Lead Maine, also issued a statement, saying, "

"The question before the justices is simple: Can the law continue to protect girls in sports by recognizing the biological reality of differences in sex and ensure that an extremist ideology does not erase hard-won opportunities for women? Female athletes deserve fairness, safety, and a level playing field—not policies that force them to compete against biological males. When states pass laws saying that women’s sports exist for women, the Supreme Court has an obligation to permit such laws.”

Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow at Defending Education said the issue should be left to stage legislatures:

“As it did in both the Dobbs and Skrmetti decisions, the Court in these cases will likely determine that unless patent evidence of invidious discrimination exists, hotly contested political issues are best left to the reasoned judgment of state legislatures, where the political process can be left to work appropriately," her statement read. "Whether in cases concerning transgender military service, gender identity markers on passports, or laws restricting so-called 'gender affirming care' for minors, this Court has proved unwilling to recognize new 'suspect' or protected classes of individuals and has repeatedly refused to do so with other arguably vulnerable classes of individuals for more than 50 years. That means the Court will apply the lowest level of judicial review -- rational basis review -- giving both states the constitutional advantage.” 

Townhall also spoke to Parshall Perry about the oral arguments. She said the issue is about the clear language of Title IX.

"At the end of the day, it’s about whether the text of Title IX means what it says it means," Parshall Perry said, adding the framers of Title IX never meant for gender identity to be included.

Parshall Perry said Title IX is a contract. "The terms of that contract must be clear," she said, noting that laws about gender identity can throw those contracts into "fruit basket upset."

She felt the oral arguments went well for Idaho and West Virginia, and noted that the liberal justices "spent their time trying to prove the Idaho case was moot."

"All [the liberal justices] were operating in damage control, trying to limit or narrow the ruling so it wouldn't apply to the rest of the country," Parshall Perry noted.

She also said the fight isn't over, citing Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case out of the Ninth Circuit. Mirabelli deals with a California law that prohibits teachers from sharing a child's transgender status or identity. U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a class-wide permanent injunction of the law in December. The Ninth Circuit paused that ruling, and an emergency petition to suspend the Ninth Circuit's ruling was submitted to the Supreme Court. That response is due next week.

"This is not the end of the line," Parshall Perry said.