logo
Supreme Court to decide if federal law bars transgender athletes from women's teams

Supreme Court to decide if federal law bars transgender athletes from women's teams

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to weigh in on the growing controversy over transgender athletes and decide if federal law bars transgender girls from women's school sports teams.
'Biological boys should not compete on girls' athletics teams,' West Virginia's attorney general said in an appeal the court voted to hear.
The appeal had the backing of 26 other Republican-led states as well as President Trump.
In recent weeks, Trump threatened to cut off education funds to California because a transgender athlete participated in a women's track and field competition.
Four years ago, West Virginia adopted its Save Women's Sports Act but the measure has been blocked as discriminatory by the 4th Circuit Court in 2-1 decision.
Idaho filed a similar appeal after their laws were blocked by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. The court said it would hear that case together with the West Virginia case.
At issue is the meaning of Title IX, the federal education law which has been credited with opening the door for the vast expansion of women's sports. Schools and colleges were told they must give girls equal opportunities in athletics by providing them with separate sports teams.
In the past decade, however, states and their schools divided on the question of who can participate on the girls team. Is it only those who were girls at birth or can it also include those whose gender identity is female?
West Virginia told the court its 'legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the legislature found, because of the 'inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females'.'
California and most Democratic states allow transgender girls to compete in sports competitions for women.
In 2013, the Legislature said a student 'shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions...consistent with his or her gender identity.'
The Supreme Court had put off a decision on this issue while the divide among the states grew.
Two years ago, the justices turned down a fast-track appeal from West Virginia's lawyers on a 7-2 vote and allowed a 12-year old transgender girl to run on the girls' cross country team.
Becky Pepper-Jackson and her mother sued after the school principal said she was barred by the state's law from competing on the girls' teams at her middle school in Bridgeport, W. Va.
She 'has lived as a girl in all aspects of her life for years and receives puberty-delaying treatment and estrogen hormone therapy, so has not experienced (and will not experience) endogenous puberty,' her mother said in support of their lawsuit.
ACLU lawyers said then the court should stand aside. They said B.P.J. was eager to participate in sports but was 'too slow to compete in the track events' on the girls team.
Last year, West Virginia tried again and urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit's decision and uphold its restrictions on transgender athletes.
The state attorneys also said the would-be middle school athlete had become a track star.
'This spring, B.P.J. placed top three in every track event B.P.J. competed in, winning most. B.P.J. beat over 100 girls, displacing them over 250 times while denying multiple girls spots and medals in the conference championship. B.P.J. won the shot put by more than three feet while placing second in discus,' they told the court.
Last year, the court opted to rule first in a Tennessee case to decide if states may prohibit puberty blockers, hormones and other medical treatments for young teens who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
On June 18, the court's conservative majority said state lawmakers had the authority to restrict medical treatments for adolescents who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, noting the ongoing debate over the long-term risks and benefits. The ruling turned aside the contention that law reflected unconstitutional sex discrimination.
On Thursday, the justices released their final orders list before their summer recess granting review of new cases to be heard in the fall. Included were the cases of West Virginia vs. BJP and Little vs. Hecox.
In response to the appeals, ACLU lawyers accused the state of seeking to 'create a false sense of national emergency' based on a legal 'challenge by one transgender girl.'
The lawsuit said the state measure was 'part of a concerted nationwide effort to target transgender youth for unequal treatment.' The suit contended the law violated Title IX and was unconstitutional because it discriminated against student athletes based on their gender identity.
West Virginia's lawyers saw a threat to Title IX and women's sports.
They said the rulings upholding transgender rights 'took a law designed to ensure meaningful competitive opportunities for women and girls—based on biological differences—and fashioned it into a lever for males to force their way onto girls' sports teams based on identity, destroying the very opportunities Title IX was meant to protect.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MAGA faithful cheer Trump for pausing Ukraine weapons after bristling at Iran strikes
MAGA faithful cheer Trump for pausing Ukraine weapons after bristling at Iran strikes

San Francisco Chronicle​

time10 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

MAGA faithful cheer Trump for pausing Ukraine weapons after bristling at Iran strikes

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is getting praise from his most ardent supporters for withholding some weapons from Ukraine after they recently questioned the Republican leader's commitment to keeping the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. This week's announcement pausing deliveries of key air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other equipment to Ukraine comes just a few weeks after Trump ordered the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Bombing those sites in Iran had some hardcore supporters of the "Make America Great Again" movement openly questioning whether Trump was betraying his vow to keep America out of 'stupid wars" as he inserted the U.S. military into Israel's conflict with Tehran. With the Ukraine pause, which affects a crucial resupply of Patriot missiles, Trump is sending the message to his most enthusiastic backers that he is committed to following through on his campaign pledge to wind down American support for Ukraine's efforts to repel Russia, a conflict he has repeatedly described as a costly boondoggle for U.S. taxpayers. 'The choice was this: either prioritize equipping our own troops with a munition in short supply (and which was used to defend U.S. troops last week) or provide them to a country where there are limited U.S. interests,' Dan Caldwell, who was ousted as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X. Caldwell publicly worried before the Iran strikes that U.S. involvement could incite a major war and ultimately cost American lives. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec, another ardent MAGA backer, warned as Trump weighed whether to carry out strikes on Iran last month that such a move 'would disastrously split the Trump coalition." Both the White House and the Pentagon have justified the move as being consistent with Trump's campaign pledge to limit U.S. involvement in foreign wars. 'The president was elected on an America first platform to put America first,' Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said. At the same time, the decision is stirring anxiety among those in the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party. Many are flummoxed by Trump's halting the flow of U.S. arms just as Russia accelerates its unrelenting assault on Ukraine. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican who hails from a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, wrote to Trump and the Pentagon on Wednesday expressing 'serious concern' about the decision and requesting an emergency briefing. 'We can't let (Russian President Vladimir) Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it's why he's been advocating for peace,' Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, wrote on X. 'Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table.' Trump spoke by phone with Putin on Thursday, the sixth call between the leaders since Trump's return to office. The leaders discussed Iran, Ukraine and other issues but did not specifically address the suspension of some U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser. Zelenskyy said in Denmark after meeting with major European Union backers that he hopes to talk to Trump in the coming days about the suspension. The administration says it is part of global review of the U.S. stockpile and is a necessary audit after sending nearly $70 billion in arms to Ukraine since Putin launched the war on Ukraine in February 2022. The pause was coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. Colby, before taking his position, spoke publicly about the need to focus U.S. strategy more on China, widely seen as the United States' biggest economic and military competitor. At his Senate confirmation hearing in March, he said the U.S. doesn't have a 'multi-war military.' 'This is the restrainers like Colby flexing their muscle and saying, 'Hey, the Pacific is more important,'' said retired Navy Adm. Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Backers of a more restrained U.S. foreign policy say the move is necessary, given an unsettled Middle East, rising challenges in Asia and the stress placed on the U.S. defense industrial complex after more than three years of war in Ukraine. 'You're really coming up to the point where continuing to provide aid to Ukraine is putting at risk the U.S. ability to operate in future crises,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. 'And you don't know when those crises are going to happen."

Big Take: Trump Tax Bill Marks Sweeping Policy Shift
Big Take: Trump Tax Bill Marks Sweeping Policy Shift

Bloomberg

time11 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Big Take: Trump Tax Bill Marks Sweeping Policy Shift

After weeks of legislative wrangling, the House passed President Trump's signature tax bill, sending it to his desk just before his July 4 deadline. It's the latest in a sweep of major victories on legislative, military and legal fronts, all of which could impact how Trump enacts his agenda going forward. On today's Big Take Podcast, Bloomberg's White House and government editor Mario Parker joins Sarah Holder to discuss what the events of the last two weeks could mean for the rest of Trump's term — and for the future of executive power.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store