The Supreme Court Can Save Women's Sports
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases related to the protection—and the preservation—of women's sports. This news should gladden the hearts of female athletes across the country. The Court's decision promises a legal reckoning that is long overdue.
It also signals the turning of a tide. For most of the last four years, women concerned for the future of their sports have been confronted with brutal apathy from athletic administrators, government officials, and the courts—and silence from an intimidated public.
But polls show a growing consensus among Americans that women's sports should be for women, and that Title IX has been stretched out of all resemblance to its original intent. Government officials and athletic associations need to protect women's sports and make sure that women are not robbed of their athletic opportunities, personal safety, and hard-earned accomplishments.
States across the country have now passed laws—27 at last count—designed to protect women's sports. Challenges to two of those laws have now brought the subject to the nation's highest Court for a final ruling.
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom are asking the court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would invalidate a West Virginia law protecting fairness in women's sports. ADF represents former college soccer player Lainey Armistead, who intervened in the lawsuit.
While captaining the women's soccer team at West Virginia State University, Armistead saw that a growing number of qualified female athletes were being sidelined—and in some cases, injured—by male athletes competing in women's events. After watching female athletes across the country lose opportunities to win in their sport, she decided to join the case.
She's not the only one recognizing the physical danger posed to women competing with bigger, stronger, more aggressive male athletes—nor the humiliation so many women feel at being virtual spectators in their own sports, knowing, before competition even begins, that their best efforts will never be enough to overcome the inherent physical advantages enjoyed by men.
In recent years, those advantages have cost thousands of women crucial athletic opportunities for achievement on the playing field, including major tournaments and championship events.
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 07: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on April 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 07: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on April 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.ADF is representing two of those women, former Idaho college track-and-field athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall in Little v. Hecox, the other case the High Court has agreed to hear. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—like the Fourth Circuit—has moved to squelch a state law protecting women's sports. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador is asking the Justices to review that lower court decision.
The Idaho case is supported by 102 female athletes, parents, coaches, and sports officials, who signed off on a brief that includes testimony after testimony from women who lost some of their best opportunities to male athletes.
The breadth of pushback against these two appeals court rulings undoubtedly influenced the Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases. Twenty-six other states signed a brief in support of the West Virginia case, collectively describing the lower court's ruling as "profoundly wrong" and warning of its "far-reaching consequences."
Common sense, too, is on the side of female athletes—overwhelmingly.
In 2017, thousands of men ran 400-meter times that were faster than the personal bests of Olympic gold medalists Sanya Richards-Ross and Allyson Felix. That's pure biology: Boys have larger hearts, bigger lungs, denser bones, and stronger muscles. Laws and policies that leave the door open for male athletes to compete in women's sports must eventually, inevitably lock women out of any chance of succeeding in those competitions.
If the only thing women can hope to glean from participating in sports is the chance to watch male athletes blow past them on the track, on the courts, and in the pool; if all that awaits them after the years of hard work they bring to competition is an increased risk of injury; if the best they can hope for is to clap politely while males win the medals, the attention, and the scholastic opportunities; then, soon enough, there will be no more female athletes in "women's sports." There will be no women's sports at all.
That is the crux of what the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding: not what women's sports will look like going forward, but whether there will be any point to women's sports existing at all.
Suzanne Beecher is legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
1.4m of the nation's poorest renters risk losing their homes with Trump's proposed HUD time limit
Still, the 33-year-old single mother is grateful she has stable housing — experts estimate just 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rental assistance get the benefits. And now Hopkins is at risk of losing her home, as federal officials move to restrict HUD policy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Amid a worsening national affordable housing and homelessness crisis, President Donald Trump's administration is determined to reshape HUD's expansive role providing stable housing for low-income people, which has been at the heart of its mission for generations. The proposed changes include a two-year limit on the federal government's signature rental assistance programs. Advertisement At a June congressional budget hearing, HUD Secretary Scott Turner argued policies like time limits will fix waste and fraud in public housing and Section 8 voucher programs. 'It's broken and deviated from its original purpose, which is to temporarily help Americans in need,' Turner said. 'HUD assistance is not supposed to be permanent.' Advertisement But the move to restrict such key subsidies would mark a significant retreat from the scope of HUD's work. Millions of tenants moved in with the promise of subsidized housing for as long as they were poor enough to remain qualified, so time limits would be a seismic shift that could destabilize the most vulnerable households, many unlikely to ever afford today's record-high rents. New research from New York University, obtained exclusively by The Associated Press, found that if families were cut off after two years, 1.4 million households could lose their vouchers and public housing subsidies — largely working families with children. This would lead housing authorities to evict many families, the report said. A broad time limit would cause 'substantial disruption and dislocation,' the it said, noting the policy is largely untested and most of the few housing authorities to voluntarily try it eventually abandoned the pilots. A break from HUD's long-held purpose of helping house the poor could also jeopardize its contracts with private landlords, who say they're already feeling the uncertainty as public housing authorities from Seattle to Atlanta announce they're scaling back in anticipation of federal funding cuts. Critics fear the restriction could derail those working towards self-sufficiency — defeating the goal time-limit supporters hope to achieve. HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett pushed back on the NYU study. 'There is plenty of data that strongly supports time limits and shows that long-term government assistance without any incentive disincentivizes able-bodied Americans to work,' Lovett said in a statement. She primarily cited statistics suggesting low employment among HUD-subsidized tenants. Hopkins said the policy would likely leave her and her son homeless in an economy that often feels indifferent to working poor people like her. Advertisement 'A two-year time limit is ridiculous,' she said. 'It's so disrespectful. I think it's dehumanizing — the whole system.' Working families are most at risk Researchers from the Housing Solutions Lab at New York University's Furman Center analyzed HUD's data over a 10-year period and found about 70% of households who could be affected by a two-year limit had already been living on those subsidies for two or more years. That's based on 2024 estimates and doesn't include elderly and disabled people who wouldn't be subject to time limits. Exempted households make up about half of the roughly 4.9 million households getting rental assistance. In the first study to examine the proposed policy's possible impacts, the NYU researchers found time limits would largely punish families who are working but earning far below their area's median income, which would ultimately shift federal rental assistance away from households with kids. 'Housing assistance is especially impactful for children,' said Claudia Aiken, the study co-author and director of new research partnerships for the Housing Solutions Lab. Their health, education, employment and earnings potential can 'change in really meaningful ways if they have stable housing,' she said. It would affect people like Hopkins, whose family was on a years-long waitlist in the expensive region where she grew up. In July 2022, she and her son moved into a two-bedroom public housing unit in Woodinville, Washington. She pays $450 a month in rent — 30% of her household income. A market-rate apartment in the area costs at least $2,000 more, according to the King County Housing Authority, which in June announced it would pause issuing some new vouchers. Hopkins knows she could never afford to live in her home state without rental assistance. It was a relief they could stay as long as they needed. She had been struggling to scrape together hundreds of dollars more a month for her previous trailer home. Advertisement 'There's no words to put on feeling like your housing is secure,' Hopkins said. 'I feel like I was gasping for air and I'm finally able to breathe.' She credits the housing subsidy for her ability to finally leave an abusive marriage, and still dreams of more — perhaps her own catering business or working as a party decorator. 'We all can't be lawyers and doctors — and two years isn't enough to even become that,' Hopkins said. Since learning of Trump's proposal, Hopkins said she's been haunted by thoughts of shoving her possessions into a van with her son, upending the stability she built for him. 'Difficult to do well' The average household in HUD-subsidized housing stays about six years, studies show. HUD funds local public housing projects where nearly 1 million households live and the Section 8 vouchers that about 4 million households use to offset their private rentals. There's been little guidance from HUD on how time-limited housing assistance would be implemented — how it would be enforced, when the clock starts and how the exemptions would be defined. Both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the potential for time limits to help curb HUD's notorious waitlists. Hard-liners contend the threat of housing loss will push people to reach self-sufficiency; others see limits, when coupled with support and workforce incentives, as a means to motivate tenants to improve their lives. Yet there are strikingly few successful examples. NYU researchers identified just 17 public housing authorities that have tested time limits. None of the programs were designed for only two years and 11 abandoned the restriction — despite being able to use federal dollars for services to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Several agencies that dropped the limits said tenants still struggled to afford housing after their time was up. Advertisement 'These policies are complex and difficult to monitor, enforce, and do well,' NYU's Aiken said. The city of Keene, New Hampshire, tried five-year time limits starting in 2001, but terminated the policy before fully enforcing it to avoid kicking out households that would still be 'rent burdened, or potentially homeless,' said Josh Meehan, executive director of Keene Housing. In California, Shawnté Spears of the Housing Authority of San Mateo County said the agency has kept its five-year time limit in tandem with educational programs she says have 'given folks motivation' to meet their goals. It also gives more people the chance to use vouchers, she said. NYU's Aiken acknowledged HUD's long waitlists make the current system 'a bit of a lottery,' adding: 'You could say that time limits are a way of increasing people's odds in that lottery.' The landlord's dilemma HUD's Section 8 programs have long depended on hundreds of thousands of for-profit and nonprofit small business owners and property managers to accept tenant vouchers. Now, landlords fear a two-year limit could put their contracts for HUD-subsidized housing in limbo. Amid the uncertainty, Denise Muha, executive director of the National Leased Housing Association, said multiple landlord groups have voiced their concerns about HUD's next budget in a letter to congressional leaders. She said landlords generally agree two years is simply not enough time for most low-income tenants to change their fortunes. Advertisement 'As a practical matter, you're going to increase your turnover, which is a cost,' Muha said. 'Nobody wants to throw out their tenants without cause.' It's always been a significant lift for private landlords to work with HUD subsidies, which involve burdensome paperwork, heavy oversight and maintenance inspections. But the trade-off is a near guarantee of dependable longer-term renters and rental income. If that's compromised, some landlords say they'd pull back from the federal subsidy programs. Brad Suster, who owns 86 Chicago-area units funded by HUD, said accepting subsidies could become risky. 'Would we have the same reliability that we know has traditionally come for countless years from the federal government?' Suster said. 'That's something landlords and owners want to know is there.' The diminishing housing stock available to low-income tenants has been a brewing problem for HUD. Between 2010 and 2020, some 50,000 housing providers left the voucher program, the agency has reported. Chaos and trade-offs, critics say It's up for debate whether lawmakers will buy into Trump's vision for HUD. This week the U.S. House appropriations committee is taking up HUD's 2026 budget, which so far makes no mention of time limits. HUD's Lovett noted the Senate's budget plans for the agency have not yet been released, and said the administration remains focused on future implementation of time limits. 'HUD will continue to engage with colleagues on the hill to ensure a seamless transition and enforcement of any new time limit,' Lovett said in a statement. Noëlle Porter, the director of government affairs at the National Housing Law Project, said Trump's fight for time limits is far from over, noting that legislative and rule changes could make them a reality. 'It is clearly a stated goal of the administration to impose work requirements and time limits on rental assistance, even though it would be wildly unpopular,' Porter said. Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina says there's no evidence time limits would save HUD money. 'This doesn't help families who already are working multiple jobs to become self-sufficient,' Clyburn said at a June hearing. 'Instead, it creates chaos, financial uncertainty and pushes these families into more severe trade-offs.' Time limits could imperil Aaliyah Barnes' longtime dream of graduating college and becoming a nurse, finding a job and a home she can afford. The 28-year-old single mom in Louisville, Kentucky, this year joined Family Scholar House, which provides counseling and support for people pursuing an education — and, to Barnes' relief, housing. Her apartment is paid for by a Section 8 voucher. In March, Barnes moved in and her 3-year-old son, Aarmoni, finally got his own room, where she set up a learning wall. Previously, she had struggled to afford housing on her wages at a call center — and living with her mom, two sisters and their kids in a cramped house was an environment ridden with arguments. The stable future she's building could disappear, though, if she's forced out in two years when her schooling is expected to take three years. 'I'd be so close, but so far away,' Barnes said. Kramon reported from Atlanta.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Manny Pacquiao pushing for Floyd Mayweather rematch after Mario Barrios: 'He's been ducking, avoiding me'
When Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. entered the ring at the MGM Grand Garden Arena on May 2, 2015, they did so taking part in the richest fight in boxing history. Five years of marination had led to a commercial bonanza, as 4.6 million Americans purchased the fight on pay-per-view, and the live gate — money from ticket sales — was a staggering $72 million. The event was gigantic, but ultimately the fight in the ring was a disappointment. Mayweather used his defensive prowess to box to a comfortable decision victory over Pacquiao to unify three welterweight belts. They say old habits die hard, and more than a decade later Pacquiao, 46, is back at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, fighting for a welterweight title against WBC champion Mario Barrios, with fresh talks of a Mayweather fight seemingly underway. "Of course [I'd be interested]," Pacquiao told Uncrowned's "The Ariel Helwani Show" on Wednesday about a potential second fight with Mayweather. "He's been ducking [the rematch]. "I don't want an exhibition with [Mayweather], I want a real fight." "It's been a long time [since the first fight]," Pacquiao added. "I want to give the fans a good fight between me and [Mayweather], but he's been ducking, avoiding me." First, Pacquiao has a stern test in front of him on Saturday in the form of Barrios. Barrios, 30, is a champion in his prime. "El Azteca" has been overlooked by opponents before, but each time he has proved his caliber. Barrios notably earned respect from the boxing community after a competitive fight with Gervonta "Tank" Davis in 2021. The welterweight champion followed that up with a loss to Keith Thurman, however he's since embarked on a three-fight win streak, including a victory over Yordenis Ugas — who sent Pacquiao into retirement in 2021. "The reason [I'm coming back] is that boxing is still my passion," Pacquiao said about ending his four-year absence from the ring. "I still have the ability to get a belt and win a world title fight. "The Ugas fight, I was distracted. There [were] so many distractions before the fight." Pacquiao was supposed to square off with Errol Spence Jr. in August 2021, but Spence Jr. was forced out with a torn retina just 10 days prior the event. After training and sparring for Spence, a southpaw, Pacquiao accepted the Cuban orthodox Ugas as a late replacement and was beaten on points. Despite having won titles in eight different weight classes and being a shoo-in for boxing's Hall of Fame, Pacquiao wasn't satisfied with his exit from the sport and wanted to return to his lifelong passion. "Two years [after I announced my retirement, I made the decision to come back]," Pacquiao revealed. "I really missed boxing. I really missed those days [in] training camp, promoting the fight, everything like that. I was consulting my family, my wife, and it just happened that my wife [gave me her blessing]." Pacquiao wasn't able to return to the ring straight away, though, as the Filipino boxer was still in the midst of his senate campaign. Earlier this year, however, Pacquiao finished 18th in the Philippine race for Senate, which meant he could finally shelve his political ambitions — at least temporarily — and focus on attempting to become the oldest welterweight champion in boxing history. "He's taller than me, and he's a champion," Pacquiao said of Barrios. "To become a champion, it's not that easy, so at least he's proven something: That he can fight." Pacquiao has also been linked to a boxing match with former two-division UFC champion Conor McGregor in recent years. McGregor made his professional boxing debut in 2017, losing to Mayweather in the second-richest fight in boxing history, behind only Mayweather vs. Pacquiao. "[We] almost make that [fight] happen, but there's so many problems with his manager," Pacquiao said of negotiations for a McGregor fight. In 2020, Pacquiao signed a contract with Paradigm Sports — which represents McGregor — to organize a boxing match between the pair. However, no fight was made as McGregor lost to Dustin Poirier, and Pacquiao instead signed to fight Spence Jr. with Premier Boxing Champions (PBC). Pacquiao and Paradigm Sports have been embroiled in a legal battle since the fight fell apart — a situation Pacquiao told Uncrowned is still ongoing and makes a potential fight between himself and McGregor difficult to organize for the time being.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Just 3 percent satisfied with amount of Epstein information released: Survey
Just three percent of Americans say they're satisfied with the amount of information the federal government has released in the case involving disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a CNN/SSRS survey released Tuesday. Meanwhile, 50 percent of U.S. adults say in the poll that they are dissatisfied with the amount of information released, 29 percent say it doesn't matter to them either way, and 17 percent say they haven't heard enough to say. The poll, conducted late last week into the weekend, followed the release of a July 7 memo from the Justice Department that concluded Epstein did not keep a client list to blackmail high-profile individuals, refuting popular conspiracy theories that had been circulating for years among segments of President Trump's base. The memo also reaffirmed an early finding that Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell in 2019, shooting down some right-wing suspicions that he was murdered. Some of Trump's most ardent supporters have been particularly outraged at the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case over the last week, but the survey shows broad dissatisfaction across demographics and party lines. Republicans are slightly less likely than Democrats to say they're dissatisfied with the amount of information released in the case — at 40 percent compared to Democrats' 56 percent. Among independents, 52 percent say they're dissatisfied. But the satisfaction rate holds steady across party lines — with 3 percent of Democrats and independents saying they're satisfied, compared to 4 percent of Republicans. Republicans are more likely to say it doesn't matter to them either way — at 38 percent — compared to 27 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents. Broken down by partisan divides, 7 percent of conservatives say they're satisfied with the amount of information on Epstein that the federal government has released, compared to 2 percent of both liberals and moderates. Meanwhile, a striking 66 percent of liberals are dissatisfied with the amount of information released — compared to 48 percent of moderates and 42 percent of conservatives. And relatively few liberals — 18 percent — say it doesn't matter to them either way, compared to 32 percent of both moderates and conservatives. The CNN/SSRS survey includes 1,057 adults and was conducted July 10-13. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
