Supreme Court takes up bans on transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports
The justices agreed to decide whether laws from Idaho and West Virginia that prevent transgender girls and women from competing in female athletics violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The cases involving transgender rights come after the court's conservative majority upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors last month.
Beginning in its next term in October, the Supreme Court will review lower court decisions in favor of transgender athletes from Idaho and West Virginia who challenged the bans in their respective states. The Idaho case involves the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, while the dispute over West Virginia's law involves the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and Title IX, the landmark civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education.
The issue of transgender athletes participating in girls' and women's sports has exploded at the state level in recent years. Idaho was the first state to pass a law prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women and girls' sports, and two dozen have since followed suit. Roughly half of the states have also passed laws that bar certain medical treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.
At the federal level, President Trump signed an executive order in February that aimed to ban transgender girls and women from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity. The president's order directs that under Title IX, educational institutions that receive federal funds cannot "deny women an equal opportunity to participate in sports."
On the heels of Mr. Trump's executive order, the NCAA announced it had updated its participation policy for transgender athletes to bar student-athletes who were assigned male at birth from competing on women's teams. On Wednesday, the University of Pennsylvania said it would no longer allow transgender athletes to participate in women's sports as part of an agreement to resolve Title IX violations. The Trump administration had opened an investigation into the school after it awarded Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, a spot on the women's swimming team.
"Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth," said Joshua Block of the ACLU, which is representing the athletes in the cases, Lindsay Hecox and Becky Pepper-Jackson. "We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play."
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his state's law.
"It's a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard," he said in a statement. "The people of West Virginia know that it's unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that's why we passed this commonsense law preserving women's sports for women."
Idaho's law
Idaho's measure, called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, requires athletic teams or sports to be designated based on biological sex, and says those for women or girls "shall not be open to students of the male sex." If there is any dispute about a student's sex, the law says schools must ask for a health examination and consent form verifying the student's biological sex.
After Idaho's GOP-led legislature passed the legislation, Hecox, a transgender woman who was attending Boise State University, sued, arguing the law violates Title IX and the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law. Hecox was a freshman when she filed her lawsuit in April 2020, and she said she wanted to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams as a sophomore, but couldn't do so because of Idaho's ban.
Hecox has received treatment for gender dysphoria since 2019, including testosterone suppression and estrogen, according to court papers.
A federal district court blocked enforcement of Idaho's law, finding that Hecox was likely to succeed in her challenge. U.S. District Judge David Nye wrote in August 2020 that the ban "on its face discriminates between cisgender athletes, who may compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity, and transgender women athletes, who may not compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity."
Additionally, Nye found the measure discriminates against transgender women by categorically excluding them from female sports and subjects participants in female athletics to a "potentially invasive" process for verifying a student's biological sex.
As a result of the district court's order, Hecox tried out for the women's NCAA running teams at Boise State, but did not qualify. She instead participated in women's club soccer and running at the university, according to court filings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the district court's injunction as applied to Hecox, finding that Idaho's ban targets all transgender girls and women regardless of their testosterone levels or whether they have received certain gender-transition treatments.
The appeals court said that the record in the case doesn't back "the conclusion that all transgender women, including those like Lindsay who receive hormone therapy, have a physiological advantage over cisgender women."
The West Virginia law
West Virginia's legislature passed its law, the Save Women's Sports Act, in 2021, which restricts participation on girls' sports teams based on biological sex, defined as a student's "reproductive biology and genetics at birth." The law prohibits transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports at every level, including club and intramural activities.
State officials have argued the law aims to protect equality in girls' sports, and it does not prevent anyone from trying out for men's, boys' or co-ed teams.
"It is only when students are playing skill and contact sports — where biological sex has a direct effect— that biological males (again, however they might identify) cannot compete with females," they wrote in a Supreme Court filing.
Before the law took effect, Pepper-Jackson, who was then 11 years old, challenged the measure, arguing it is unconstitutional and violates Title IX, the landmark civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools or programs that receive federal funding.
Pepper-Jackson, now a teenager, was born male but began identifying as female at "an early age," lawyers wrote in court papers. She has received puberty-delaying treatment and estrogen hormone therapy. When Pepper-Jackson was a rising sixth grader and preparing to begin middle school, she was informed by her school's principal that she could not participate in girls' school sports because of West Virginia's law.
A federal judge in July 2022 temporarily blocked West Virginia from enforcing the law only against Pepper-Jackson, ruling its application would likely violate Title IX and the Constitution. As a result of the injunction, she was able to participate in her middle school girls' cross-country and track-and-field teams.
In early 2023, U.S. District judge Joseph Goodwin ruled for the state and upheld the law. He also lifted the earlier injunction that had blocked enforcement against Pepper-Jackson.
"A transgender girl is biologically male and, barring medical intervention, would undergo male puberty like other biological males. And biological males generally outperform females athletically," he wrote. "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."
Pepper-Jackson appealed and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for emergency relief, which would've allowed her to participate in the spring 2023 track-and-field season. The appeals court granted her request, after which West Virginia officials sought the Supreme Court's intervention. The high court then denied the state's bid to allow it to enforce the law against Pepper-Jackson, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.
A divided 4th Circuit issued a ruling on the merits of the case in April 2024, finding West Virginia's law violated Title IX by discriminating against Pepper-Jackson on the basis of sex.
Citing Pepper-Jackson's years-long identity as a girl, social transition, name change, updated birth certificate listing her as a female and medical treatments, the 4th Circuit's majority said offering her a "'choice' between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is no real choice at all."
"By participating on boys teams, B.P.J. would be sharing the field with boys who are larger, stronger, and faster than her because of the elevated levels of circulating testosterone she lacks," Judge Toby Heytens wrote. "The act thus exposes B.P.J. to the very harms Title IX is meant to prevent by effectively 'exclud[ing]' her from 'participation in' all non-coed sports entirely."
But in their appeal to the Supreme Court, West Virginia officials argued that the 4th Circuit's decision threatens Title IX's promise of equal athletic opportunity for women and girls.
"In the Fourth Circuit, females must now compete against biological males — and all the physiological advantages they possess — in all athletic events," lawyers for the state wrote.
Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson argued it's too soon for the Supreme Court to weigh in, as the 4th Circuit's decision is the first and only from a federal appeals court to address Title IX's protections for transgender athletes.
Supreme Court takes up case on bans for transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports
Liverpool soccer star Diogo Jota killed in car crash in Spain, officials say
What to know about Rep. Hakeem Jeffries hours-long House speech ahead of budget bill vote
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Pressure from Trump for trade deals before Wednesday deadline, but hints of more time for talks
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is stepping up pressure on trading partners to quickly make new deals before a Wednesday deadline, with plans for the United States to start sending letters Monday warning countries that higher tariffs could kick in Aug. 1. That furthers the uncertainty for businesses, consumers and America's trading partners, and questions remain about which countries will be notified, whether anything will change in the days ahead and whether President Donald Trump will once more push off imposing the rates. Trump and his top trade advisers say he could extend the time for dealmaking but they insist the administration is applying maximum pressure on other nations. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, told CBS' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday that Trump would decide when it was time to give up on negotiations. 'The United States is always willing to talk to everybody about everything,' Hassett said. 'There are deadlines, and there are things that are close, so maybe things will push back past the deadline or maybe they won't. In the end the president is going to make that judgment.' Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, likewise said countries negotiating in good faith and making concessions could 'sort of, get the date rolled.' The steeper tariffs that President Donald Trump announced April 2 threatened to overhaul the global economy and lead to broader trade wars. A week later, after the financial markets had panicked, his administration suspended for 90 days most of the higher taxes on imports just as they were to take effect. The negotiating window until July 9 has led to announced deals only with the United Kingdom and Vietnam. Trump imposed elevated tariff rates on dozens of nations that run meaningful trade surpluses with the U.S., and a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries in response to what he called an economic emergency. There are separate 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum and a 25% tariff on autos. Since April, few foreign governments have set new trade terms with Washington as the Republican president demanded. Trump told reporters early Friday that his administration might be sending out letters as early as Saturday to countries spelling out their tariff rates if they did not reach a deal, but that the U.S. would not start collecting those taxes until Aug. 1. On Friday night, he said he would 'probably send out 10 or 12' letters on Monday, each reflecting 'different amounts of money, different amounts of tariffs and somewhat different statements.' He and his advisers have declined to say which countries would receive the letters. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rejected the idea that Aug. 1 was a new deadline and declined to say what might happen Wednesday. 'We'll see,' Bessent said on CNN's State of the Union. 'I'm not going to give away the playbook.' He said the U.S. was 'close to several deals,' and predicted several big announcements over the next few days. He gave no details. 'I think we're going to see a lot of deals very quickly,' Bessent said. Trump has announced a deal with Vietnam that would allow U.S. goods to enter the country duty-free, while Vietnamese exports to the U.S. would face a 20% levy. That was a decline from the 46% tax on Vietnamese imports he proposed in April — one of his so-called reciprocal tariffs targeting dozens of countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit. Asked if he expected to reach deals with the European Union or India, Trump said Friday that 'letters are better for us' because there are so many countries involved. 'We have India coming up and with Vietnam, we did it, but much easier to send a letter saying, 'Listen, we know we have a certain deficit, or in some cases a surplus, but not too many. And this is what you're going to have to pay if you want to do business in the United States.' Canada, however, will not be one of the countries receiving letters, Trump's ambassador, Pete Hoekstra, said Friday after trade talks between the two countries recently resumed. 'Canada is one of our biggest trading partners,' Hoekstra told CTV News in an interview in Ottawa. 'We're going to have a deal that's articulated.' Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he wants a new deal in place by July 21 or Canada will increase trade countermeasures. Hoekstra would not commit to a date for a trade agreement and said even with a deal, Canada could still face some tariffs. But 'we're not going to send Canada just a letter,' he said. Knickmeyer and Price write for the Associated Press. Price reported from Bridgewater, New Jersey. AP Business Writer Matt O'Brien in Providence, Rhode Island, contributed to this report.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's 'America Party' reportedly registers with Election Commission
Elon Musk's 'America Party' reportedly registers with Election Commission originally appeared on TheStreet. It's been a few days since Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA) CEO Elon Musk, who once supported cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Dogecoin, has been talking about launching a new political party in the U.S. Reportedly, it turns out that the political outfit has officially registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Called 'America Party (AMEP),' the new organization registered with the FEC on July 6 under Filing FEC-1898441 and FEC Committee ID-C00910323. The filing mentions the candidate's name as Elon Reeve Musk and says: This committee supports/opposes only one candidate and is NOT an Authorized Committee. AMEP's treasurer and custodian of records is Vaibhav Taneja, who is Tesla's chief financial supported Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential election. Once he won the election, Musk led the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) from January to May under the Trump administration. Though the nomenclature led many to believe that the department would integrate Dogecoin payments, no such development took place. While both are among the most pro-crypto political and business figures, Trump's "big, beautiful bill" irked Musk so much that he openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the two-party system in the U.S. and said the country needed a new political party, which he has launched. The crypto community has been quick to react to the latest development. Popular Dogecoin team member, known as DogeDesigner or @cb_doge on X, confirmed the news and has been supporting Musk's political campaign. Pro-crypto attorney John Deaton, who challenged Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as a Republican candidate during the 2024 election, supported Musk's announcement of the party on July 5. Deaton also posted a short video of his debate with Warren in which he was seen lambasting the two-party system: "All of us suck in Congress... It's a broken system. I am disrupting that system." Though Deaton lost the election to Warren, he is supporting Musk's political challenge in the U.S. The total crypto market cap stood at $3.36 trillion at the time of writing. TheStreet Roundtable reached out to the FEC for a comment on the matter and has not received a response so far. We will update the story if and when the Commission responds. Elon Musk's 'America Party' reportedly registers with Election Commission first appeared on TheStreet on Jul 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jul 6, 2025, where it first appeared.


Chicago Tribune
44 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump and GOP target ballots arriving after Election Day that delay counts and feed conspiracy fears
ATLANTA — President Donald Trump and other Republicans have long criticized states that take weeks to count their ballots after Election Day. This year has seen a flurry of activity to address it. Part of Trump's executive order on elections, signed in March but held up by lawsuits, takes aim at one of the main reasons for late vote counts: Many states allow mailed ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day. The U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an Election Day deadline for mail ballots. At least three states — Kansas, North Dakota and Utah — passed legislation this year that eliminated a grace period for receiving mailed ballots, saying they now need to be in by Election Day. Even in California, where weekslong vote counting is a frequent source of frustration and a target of Republican criticism, a bill attempting to speed up the process is moving through the Democratic-controlled Legislature. The ballot deadline section of Trump's wide-ranging executive order relies on an interpretation of federal law that establishes Election Day for federal elections. He argues this means all ballots must be received by that date. 'This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd,' the executive order states. It follows a pattern for the president, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of such ballots even though there is no evidence they are the source of widespread fraud. The issue is tied closely to his complaints about how long it takes to count ballots, his desire for results on election night and his false claims that overnight 'dumps' of vote counts point to a rigged election in 2020, when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. But ballots received after Election Day, in addition to being signed and dated by the voter, must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service indicating they were completed and dropped off on or before the final day of voting. Accepting late-arriving ballots has not been a partisan issue historically. States as different as California and Mississippi allow them, while Colorado and Indiana do not. 'There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after Election Day,' said Steve Simon, the chief election official in Minnesota, which has an Election Day deadline. In his executive order, most of which is paused by the courts, Trump directs the attorney general to 'take all necessary action' to enforce federal law against states that include late-arriving ballots in their final counts for federal elections. He also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to condition federal funding on compliance. Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to Election Day, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation. Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers in Kansas ended the state's practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after Election Day, a change that will take effect for next year's midterms. Problems with mail delivery had prompted Kansas to add the grace period in 2017. Kansas state Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican who chairs the committee that handles election legislation, compared the grace period to giving a football team extra chances to score after the game clock expires. 'We need this uniform end to the election just so that we know that all voters are operating on the same time frame,' he said. California has long been a source of complaints about the amount of time it takes for ballots to be counted and winners declared. 'The rest of the country shouldn't have to wait on California to know the results of the elections,' U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Committee on House Administration, said during an April hearing. He said California's 'lax election laws' were to blame for the delays. The nation's most populous state has the largest number of registered voters in the country, some 22.9 million, which is roughly equivalent to the number of voters in Florida and Georgia combined. California also has embraced universal mail voting, which means every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. The deadline for election offices to receive completed ballots is seven days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by then. A survey of some 35,000 Los Angeles County voters during last fall's election found that 40% waited until Election Day to return their ballot. Election officials say the exhaustive process for reviewing and counting mail ballots combined with a large percentage of voters waiting until the last minute makes it impossible for all results to be available on election night. Under state law, election officials in California have 30 days to count ballots, conduct a postelection review and certify the results. Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's chief election official, told Congress in May that his team counted nearly 97% of the 3.8 million ballots cast within a week of Election Day in 2024. Jesse Salinas, president of the state clerks' association, said his staff in Yolo County, near Sacramento, already works 16-hour days, seven days a week before and after an election. Assemblyman Marc Berman introduced legislation that would keep the state's 30-day certification period but require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election. They would be required to notify the state if they weren't going to meet that deadline and give a reason. 'I don't think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren't out there and that this lack of confidence doesn't exist, in particular among Republican voters in California,' said Berman, a Democrat. 'There are certain good government things that we can do to strengthen our election system.' He acknowledged that many counties already meet the 13-day deadline in his bill, which awaits consideration in the Senate. 'My hope is that this will strengthen people's confidence in their election system and their democracy by having some of those benchmarks and just making it very clear for folks when different results will be available,' Berman said.