U.S. Supreme Court will take up a new case about which school sports teams transgender students can join
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a case over state restrictions on which school sports teams transgender students can join.
Just two weeks after upholding a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, the justices said they will review lower court rulings in favor of transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia. The case will be argued in the fall.
The nationwide battle over the participation of transgender girls on girls sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans have leveraged the issue as a fight for athletic fairness for women and girls.
More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court.
At the federal level, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits and launched investigations over state and school policies that have allowed transgender athletes to compete freely. This week, the University of Pennsylvania modified a trio of school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and said it would apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by her participation on the women's swimming team, part of a resolution of a federal civil rights case.
Separately, Senate Democrats in March blocked a Republican push for a national ban.
Republican President Donald Trump also has acted aggressively in other areas involving transgender people, including removing transgender troops from military service. In May, the Supreme Court allowed the ouster of transgender service members to proceed, reversing lower courts that had blocked it.
A recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 7 in 10 U.S. adults think transgender female athletes should not be allowed to participate in girls and women's sports at the high school, college or professional level. That view was shared by about 9 in 10 Republicans and roughly half of Democrats.
West Virginia is appealing a lower-court ruling that found the ban violates the rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been taking puberty-blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since she was in the third grade. Pepper-Jackson sued the state when she in was middle school because she wanted to compete on the cross country and track teams.
This past school year, Pepper-Jackson qualified for the West Virginia girls high school state track meet, finishing third in the discus throw and eighth in the shot put in the Class AAA division.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Pepper-Jackson in two areas, under the Constitution's equal protection clause and the landmark federal law known as Title IX that forbids sex discrimination in education.
'It's a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard. 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,' state Attorney General John McCuskey said in a statement.
Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson, who had urged the court to reject the appeal, said they stand ready to defend the lower-court rulings.
'Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status. Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do–to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,' the American Civil Liberties Union's Joshua Block said in a statement. Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ rights, also is representing Pepper-Jackson.
Idaho in 2020 became the first state in the nation to ban transgender women and girls from playing on women's sports teams sponsored by public schools, colleges and universities.
The ACLU and the women's rights group Legal Voice sued Idaho on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who hoped to run for Boise State University. A Boise-area athlete who is not transgender also joined the lawsuit because she fears the law could force her to undergo invasive tests to prove her biological sex if someone questions her gender.
The state asked for Supreme Court review after lower courts blocked the state's ban while the lawsuit continues.
The justices did not act on a third case from Arizona that raises the same issue.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
39 minutes ago
- CTV News
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
President Donald Trump holds a gavel after he signed his signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts at the White House, Friday, July 4, 2025, in Washington, surrounded by members of Congress. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) WASHINGTON — Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. U.S. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Hard to reap the rewards Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Social net setbacks Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Some unhappy Republicans Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. 'The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.' Associated Press writer Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report. Seung Min Kim, The Associated Press
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Canada's now-abandoned digital services tax was never enough to begin with
Days after U.S. President Donald Trump broke off trade talks with Canada, Ottawa suddenly rescinded its new three per cent digital services tax (DST). We all knew bargaining with Trump would be full of drama, threats and bluster. But Canadians had their elbows up. Abandoning the DST so quickly, weeks before the July 21 deadline for a deal, is a worrying sign. What will Trump demand next? At any rate, given Trump's deals with other countries (which are not binding, and leave U.S. tariffs in place), it's not clear any deal (if reached) will be worth the paper it's printed on. Opinion articles are based on the author's interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. More details
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
How Trump could make Canada better
As obnoxious as he is, Donald Trump may actually be doing Canada some good. His demands are forcing this country to rethink bad ideas, question sacred cows and brace itself for the challenges of the future. Just this week, the U.S. President gave Prime Minister Mark Carney an excuse to jettison a wrong-headed tax on foreign tech giants. Because just about all of those giants are American, Washington has opposed it from the start, under Joe Biden's administration as well as Mr. Trump's. The heaps of money that were to flow to Ottawa from the tax would have come from the pockets of the millions of Canadians who use Amazon, Apple, Google or other digital providers. Higher taxes inevitably mean higher rates for consumers. Mr. Trump refused to continue trade talks with Canada until Ottawa got rid of the tax, which was about to take effect. Mr. Carney duly killed it. A capitulation? No, a sensible concession. Good policy, to boot. I can think of at least three other ways that Mr. Trump's Blame Canada campaign is forcing us to reconsider the way we do things. Start with national defence. Mr. Trump has said for years that Canada and other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are freeloading off the United States, relying on Washington to keep the Western alliance well armed while scrimping on armaments themselves. To up defence spending, Canada must cut deeper, tax harder and borrow more – all at once It's not your grandfather's war any more, and defence procurement must evolve Canada was one of the worst of the laggards, its rate of spending near the bottom of the pack. By outsourcing our defence to our mighty next-door neighbour, we saved countless billions – money that was freed up for other needs such as hospitals, roads, parks and schools. The generous health care and other social programs that Canadians cherish were in effect underwritten by the U.S. That had to change some time. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine showed how vital it is to keep NATO strong, united and well armed. Now the alliance itself is calling for all members to increase their defence spending dramatically over the next decade. 'For too long, one ally, the United States, carried too much of the burden,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said at last month's summit. That is changing, he said, and Mr. Trump 'made this change possible.' That may have been an attempt to feed the ego of the egomaniac in the White House, but it was not wrong. Or consider interprovincial trade. The absurd barriers to the flow of goods, services and labour across Canada have been an issue for decades. Everyone agreed they were absurd. Editorial writers turned blue in the face pointing out their absurdity. Premiers and prime ministers huddled every few years to talk about doing something. Next to nothing actually happened. Try getting one of Quebec's many excellent craft beers in Ontario. Now, at last, we are seeing some progress. The punishing, nonsensical tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump have put a fire under the provinces and the feds. If we cannot have free trade with the United States, we should at least be able to trade freely with each other. Internal free trade by Canada Day? It'll take longer than that Even Canada's system of supply management is getting a second look. Under this Soviet-style scheme, marketing boards, rather than the free market, govern the output of eggs, milk, cheese and poultry. Authorities set minimum prices and impose production quotas. High tariffs on imports of these basic commodities ensure that the cozy little set-up survives. The result for ordinary consumers is far higher prices than they might otherwise pay for simple things such as a brick of cheddar or a carton of yogurt. Mr. Trump attacked the system in his first term and is at it again. He is not alone. Canada's other trading partners complain bitterly about it, too. But the agriculture lobby is so strong, especially in Quebec, that no government has dared to dismantle it. Whether Mr. Carney's will remains to be seen. The recent Throne Speech reaffirmed support for supply management and new legislation attempts to prevent Ottawa from sacrificing it in trade talks. But the system is probably the biggest remaining irritant for Mr. Trump, and Mr. Carney might be forced to make concessions to strike a tariff deal with him. Good. Should we all be giving Mr. Trump a great big cheer, then? Of course not. He is bad for his country, for us and for the world in ways too many to count. He is a bully and blowhard. He has insulted our leaders and threatened our sovereignty. On many issues, pushing back against his demands is the way to go. But some of what he says about the way we do things is right. We do hide under American skirts for our defence. We do coddle our farm producers and hobble foreign competitors. If Canada is to survive the Trumpian onslaught, it must do more than simply put its elbows up and stand strong. It must become more efficient, more productive, more innovative. It must change.
