On Tuesday, Jan. 13 the Supreme Court began hearing two highly anticipated cases across the nation, addressing whether Congress can limit women’s sports to biological females only. The cases Little vs. Hecox and West Virginia vs. B.P.J., challenge laws passed in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women from participating in female sports. 

A decision is set to be made towards the end of June 2026, which could set a nationwide precedent on whether or not states have the power to limit athletic participation based on biological gender, potentially reshaping school sports policies and the role transgender people play in the United States. 

During opening arguments, justices focused on legal technicalities, with Conservative Republicans leaning to uphold the bans based on “sex” definitions. These justices appeared more inclined to uphold the bans, citing concerns over harm to female athletes.

“There’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside,” Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed in the oral arguments.

On the other hand, Liberal Justices argued over interpretation, Title IX exemptions, and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the debate was less about sports itself and more about the constitutionality of these cases.

“What they’re arguing is those two laws, the Idaho law and the West Virginia law, will flat out violate the equal protection clause because it is specifically targeting transgender athletes,” AP US Government and Politics teacher, Mr. Pohlman stated.

Little vs. Hecox originated in 2020, when Boise State University banned Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman from joining the women’s track and cross country team. One year later, West Virginia vs. B.P.J rose to the surface when Heather Jackson – the mother of B.P.J, a transgender High School Student who was not allowed to compete on her school’s track team – sued the state of West Virginia, challenging the “Save Women’s Sports Act”.