Supreme Court takes up two cases challenging transgender sports bans
The states that filed the petitions for the cases want the Supreme Court to decide whether West Virginia's and Idaho's laws restricting transgender student participation violate federal law. | Ted Shaffrey/AP
By Bianca Quilantan
07/03/2025 10:22 AM EDT
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up two cases in which transgender athletes have challenged state laws barring them from competing in women and girls sports.
The states that filed the petitions for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox want the Supreme Court to decide whether West Virginia's and Idaho's laws restricting transgender student participation violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX, the federal law that bars sex-based discrimination.
The West Virginia lawsuit was filed in 2021 on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender middle schooler who was looking to try out for her school's girls cross-country team and has played sports on teams that match her gender identity for several seasons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A year before declaring independence, colonists offered 'Olive Branch' petition to King George III
NEW YORK (AP) — Alarmed by the policies of President Donald Trump, millions turned out last month for protests around the United States and overseas. Mindful of next year's 250th anniversary of American independence, organizers called the movement 'No Kings.' Had the same kind of rallies been called for in the summer of 1775, the response likely would have been more cautious. 'It ('No Kings') was probably a minority opinion in July 1775,' says H.W. Brands, a prize-winning scholar and chair of the history department at the University of Texas at Austin. 'There was a lot of passion for revolution in New England, but that was different from the rest of the country,' says Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Joseph Ellis. 'There were still people who don't want to drawn into what they feared was an unnecessary war.' This month marks the 250th anniversary — the semiquincentennial — of a document enacted almost exactly a year before the Declaration of Independence: 'The Olive Branch Petition,' ratified July 5, 1775 by the Continental Congress. Its primary author was John Dickinson, a Pennsylvanian whose writing skills led some to call him the 'Penman of the Revolution,' and would stand as a final, desperate plea to reconcile with Britain. They put forth a pre-revolutionary argument The notion of 'No Kings' is a foundation of democracy. But over the first half of 1775 Dickinson and others still hoped that King George III could be reasoned with and would undo the tax hikes and other alleged abuses they blamed on the British Parliament and other officials. Ellis calls it the 'Awkward Interval,' when Americans had fought the British in Lexington and Concord and around Bunker Hill, while holding off from a full separation. 'Public opinion is changing during this time, but it still would have been premature to issue a declaration of independence,' says Ellis, whose books include 'Founding Brothers,' 'The Cause' and the upcoming 'The Great Contradiction." The Continental Congress projected unity in its official statements. But privately, like the colonies overall, members differed. Jack Rakove, a professor of history at Stanford University and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 'Original Meanings,' noted that delegates to Congress ranged from 'radicals' such as Samuel Adams who were avid for independence to such 'moderates' as Dickinson and New York's John Jay. The Olive Branch resolution balanced references to 'the delusive pretences, fruitless terrors, and unavailing severities' administered by British officials with dutiful tributes to shared ties and to the king's 'royal magnanimity and benevolence.' '(N)otwithstanding the sufferings of your loyal Colonists during the course of this present controversy, our Breasts retain too tender a regard for the Kingdom from which we derive our Origin to request such a Reconciliation as might in any manner be inconsistent with her Dignity or her welfare,' the sometimes obsequious petition reads in part. The American Revolution didn't arise at a single moment but through years of anguished steps away from the 'mother' country — a kind of weaning that at times suggested a coming of age, a young person's final departure from home. In letters and diaries written in the months before July 1775, American leaders often referred to themselves as children, the British as parents and the conflict a family argument. Edmund Pendleton, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, urged 'a reconciliation with Our mother Country.' Jay, who would later help negotiate the treaty formally ending the Revolutionary War, proposed informing King George that 'your majesty's American subjects' are 'bound to your majesty by the strongest ties of allegiance and affection and attached to their parent country by every bond that can unite societies.' In the Olive Branch paper, Dickinson would offer tribute to 'the union between our Mother country and these colonies.' An early example of 'peace through strength' The Congress, which had been formed the year before, relied in the first half of 1775 on a dual strategy that now might be called 'peace through strength,' a blend of resolve and compromise. John Adams defined it as 'to hold the sword in one hand, the olive branch in the other.' Dickinson's petition was a gesture of peace. A companion document, 'The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms," was a statement of resolve. The 1775 declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who a year later would be the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence, revised by Dickinson and approved by the Congress on July 6. The language anticipated the Declaration of Independence with its condemnation of the British for 'their intemperate Rage for unlimited Domination' and its vows to 'make known the Justice of our Cause.' But while the Declaration of Independence ends with the 13 colonies 'absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,' the authors in 1775 assured a nervous public 'that we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.' 'Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate Measure, or induced us to excite any other Nation to war against them,' they wrote. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were among the peers of Dickinson who thought him naive about the British, and were unfazed when the king refused even to look at the Olive Branch petition and ruled that the colonies were in a state of rebellion. Around the same time Dickinson was working on his draft, the Continental Congress readied for further conflict. It appointed a commander of the newly-formed Continental Army, a renowned Virginian whom Adams praised as 'modest and virtuous ... amiable, generous and brave." His name: George Washington. His ascension, Adams wrote, "will have a great effect, in cementing and securing the Union of these Colonies.'
San Francisco Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Harry Wilson to captain Australia in rugby test against Fiji on Sunday
NEWCASTLE, Australia (AP) — Loose forward Harry Wilson will captain the Wallabies while Tate McDermott and Noah Lolesio will form the halfback pairing for Sunday's test match against Fiji in Newcastle north of Sydney. The starting roles by the trio could indicate they are favored by head coach Joe Schmidt for those positions for the first of three test matches against the British and Irish Lions in Brisbane on July 19. Schmidt on Friday also named rugby league convert Joseph-Aukuso Sua'ali'i to his first Wallabies start on home soil, combining with Len Ikitau in the centers to face Fiji. The 21-year-old Sua'ali'i will line up at outside center after spending the Super Rugby season at fullback with the New South Wales Waratahs, with Ikitau reverting to the No. 12 jersey. Schmidt opted for experience in the Australian front row, with former captain David Porecki called back into the team, 643 days since he last played for the Wallabies. The 32-year-old Porecki last played at the 2023 Rugby World Cup, where Australia failed to get past the group stage. He didn't play in 2024 due to Achilles and calf injuries. 'The whole squad has worked hard on and off the field and reconnected well with a short runway from our assembly through to the test on Sunday," Schmidt said in a Rugby Australia statement. 'I think the players and the wider management are keen to get underway, especially in front of a big crowd here in Newcastle." The last time the teams met was in France at the Rugby World Cup, where Fiji beat the Wallabies 22-15. ___ Australia: Tom Wright, Harry Potter, Joseph-Aukuso Sua'ali'i, Len Ikitau, Max Jorgenson, Noah Lolesio, Tate McDermott; Harry Wilson (captain), Fraser McReight, Langi Gleeson, Jeremy Williams, Nick Frost, Allan Ala'alatoa, David Porecki, James Slipper. Reserves: Billy Pollard, Angus Bell, Zane Nonggorr, Tom Hooper, Carlo Tizzano, Nic White, Ben Donaldson, Filipo Daugunu. ___
Hamilton Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Takeaways: US military expands enforcement zone to 1/3 of southern border
COLUMBUS, N.M. (AP) — The military is expanding its authority and reach along swaths of the southern U.S. border where troops have been empowered to detain people who enter the country illegally. Designated militarized zones will soon cover nearly one-third of the U.S. border with Mexico under supervision of nearby military bases. Federal prosecutors have filed criminal trespassing charges in the militarized terrain against more than 1,400 people, adding to possible consequences for people who cross the border illegally. Reaction to the military buffer has been mixed among residents of New Mexico's rural Luna County, where a strong culture of individual liberty is tempered by the desire to tame networks that ferry migrants and contraband across the border. Some farmers and ranchers have welcomed the military's expanded mission. But the changes also are being challenged in court and questioned by civil rights advocates and outdoor enthusiasts including hunters and hikers who fear they'll be locked out of public lands. No-entry signs The first two militarized zones, introduced in April and May, extend along 230 miles (370 kilometers) of border. The buffer runs from Fort Hancock, Texas, through El Paso and westward past factories and cattle yards to partially encircle the New Mexico border village of Columbus, where in 1916 Mexican revolutionary forces led by Pancho Villa crossed into the U.S. in a deadly predawn raid. The Army has posted thousands of no-entry signs across the region, declaring a 'restricted area by authority of the commander.' James Johnson, a fourth-generation local farmer, oversees the summer harvests on private farmland along 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the border. He says the military deployments under prior presidents put 'eyes and ears' on the border and that the new approach is 'trying to give some teeth' to enforcement. Luna County Commissioner Ray Trejo says he and other hunters are worried about their rights to carry firearms and harvest game from the newly designated militarized zones. He sees the new trespassing charges as inhumane in an economy built on immigrant farm labor. 'People are coming into our country to work, stepping now all of a sudden into a military zone, and they have no idea,' he said. Abbey Carpenter leads a search-and-rescue group for missing migrants and says public access is being denied across sweltering stretches of desert where migrant deaths have surged . 'Maybe there are more deaths, but we don't know,' she said. Fewer border crossings Border Patrol arrests along the southern border this year have dropped to the slowest pace since 1966, including a 30% drop in June. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a stark contrast with late 2023 when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. Thwarted attempts to cross have plunged not only since Trump took office but also previously when President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024, and when Mexican officials increased enforcement within their own borders in December 2023. At least 7,600 members of the armed forces have vastly expanded the U.S. government presence on the border. The Defense Department last week added an additional 250-mile (400-kilometer) militarized area in Texas' Rio Grande Valley and plans another near Yuma, Arizona. Combined, the four zones will cover nearly one-third of the U.S. border with Mexico. Legal challenges The new militarized zones are tied to President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency on the border on his first day in office this year. The moves are being challenged in proceedings at a federal courthouse in Las Cruces on the banks of the Upper Rio Grande, with mixed outcomes. Migrants in drab county jail jumpsuits and chains filed before a magistrate judge on a recent weekday. They included a 29-year-old woman from Guatemala who sells pottery for a living. Military trespassing charges against her were dismissed for lack of evidence, but a conviction for illegal entry resulted in a two-week jail sentence before likely deportation. In separate proceedings, a federal public defender's office has challenged the military's new oversight of public land at the border in New Mexico — an area nearly twice the size of Washington, D.C., — seizing on the arrest of one Mexican man for trespassing through remote terrain to test the legal waters. It says the designation of a militarized zone in New Mexico without congressional authorization is 'a matter of staggering and unprecedented political significance.' A judge has yet to rule on the arguments. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
