&w=3840&q=100)
After UPenn ban, US top court agrees to hear case on transgender athletes
According to a report by The New York Times, the two Supreme Court cases are expected to be heard in the upcoming term beginning in October, with rulings likely by mid-2026.
The court's decision to hear the cases—one from West Virginia and one from Idaho—comes amid a rapid acceleration of restrictions on transgender Americans, from sports to the military.
UPenn to restrict trans-athlete participation
Earlier this week, the University of Pennsylvania reached an agreement with the federal government to restrict transgender athlete participation in response to a civil rights investigation. The case centred around swimmer Lia Thomas, whose participation in NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) women's events ignited national controversy and scrutiny from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
The agreement was seen by critics as a significant rollback of transgender inclusion in collegiate sports.
Cases being reviewed by Supreme Court
The plaintiffs — Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho—are both transgender athletes challenging their states' laws as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Pepper-Jackson, a high school student who began transitioning in elementary school and takes puberty blockers, was barred from joining her middle school girls' cross-country team after West Virginia passed a law prohibiting transgender girls from competing on female teams. Represented by the ACLU, she obtained a court order to compete and has since posted competitive results, including a top-three finish in the state discus championship.
In Idaho, college runner Lindsay Hecox challenged a 2020 law that bans transgender women and girls from female sports at public schools and universities. A lower court allowed her to continue participating at the club level. The state appealed to the Supreme Court with backing from the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
Justice Dept push for transgender ban in schools sports
Since 2020, 27 states have enacted laws restricting transgender athletes in girls' and women's school sports. In February, the Trump administration ordered a withdrawal of federal funding from schools that allow transgender girls to compete on female teams.
The US justice department has also signalled potential legal action against public schools that allow transgender athlete participation.
Meanwhile, organisations like the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee have attempted to introduce policy frameworks based on testosterone thresholds, though no national or international consensus has emerged.
These cases could be historic, as the Supreme Court has never before ruled on transgender participation in school sports.
Trump admin bans transgender military service
Federal actions have also targeted transgender individuals serving in the US military. US President Donald Trump signed an executive order within days of taking office to ban transgender military service. Although federal courts initially blocked the measure, the Supreme Court last month allowed its enforcement.
Since then, the defence department has issued guidance requiring all active-duty transgender service members to voluntarily self-identify by June 6 and reserve members by July 7, or face possible removal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Gutkha Ban Vs Tasmac Sales: Contradiction in Tamil Nadu's Public Health Policy
Srimathi Venkatachari In Tamil Nadu, public health policy treads a morally ambiguous line between constitutional commitment and commercial convenience. The state, invoking Article 47 of the Constitution—mandating the govt to improve nutrition and public health and prohibit intoxicating substances — has banned gutka and pan masala citing cancer risks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At the same time, it operates and profits from the largest govt-run liquor retail monopoly in India: Tasmac. With more than `44,000 crore in annual revenue, the contradiction is not just glaring —it's institutional. This paradox reveals a deeper policy schizophrenia. On the one hand, the govt frames itself as a paternalistic guardian, shielding citizens from harmful substances. On the other, it plays bartender to the masses, peddling alcohol from every street corner, including those adjacent to schools, temples, and homes. The result is a public health framework that outlaws cancer but subsidizes cirrhosis. The 2013 ban on chewable tobacco was enforced under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a legislative tool designed to protect citizens from hazardous food items. The move received judicial backing. In Godawat Pan Masala Products Co. vs Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the States' autonomy under the Food Safety law to restrict or ban harmful substances. Madras High Court, in Rathinam Enterprises vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) went further, approving the selective ban on processed tobacco while permitting the sale of raw tobacco leaves. Contrast this with the legal regime for alcohol. Here, Tamil Nadu enjoys a golden goose thanks to Entry 8 of the state list in the Constitution. It grants states the sole authority to regulate alcohol production, distribution and sale. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now As a result, the same govt that brands gutka a public enemy becomes a benevolent supplier of alcohol. Public health, in this calculus, bends easily to revenue imperatives. Legally, the state walks a careful line, but the cracks are evident. In state of Tamil Nadu vs K Balu (2017) the Supreme Court upheld state-imposed curbs on liquor sales, especially near national highways, affirming the govt's power to regulate in the public interest. Yet, public interest becomes an elastic term when liquor shops mysteriously reappear just meters from their original locations after 'relocation'. Citizens see through this charade. A Tasmac outlet may comply with zoning laws on paper while operating adjacent to residential zones in practice. Alcoholism, domestic violence and road fatalities climb, but liquor counters stay open, often with police protection. The result is what might be termed 'constitutional tokenism': the use of selective bans to appear health-conscious while running a vast, state-sponsored liquor empire. This satisfies constitutional formalities under the doctrine of 'reasonable classification' but fails the test of equity, ethics and lived experience. The social cost of alcohol consumption in Tamil Nadu is immense. Studies link it to rising domestic violence, workplace absenteeism, school dropouts and road accidents. Women's groups routinely protest Tasmac shops that operate in close proximity to homes, citing increased insecurity and disruption of family life. Many of these protests are met with silence or police force. Meanwhile, the fiscal reliance on liquor revenue makes meaningful reform nearly impossible. In some districts, revenue from Tasmac outstrips allocations for education and public health. The irony is cruel: schools go underfunded while liquor outlets enjoy round-the-clock supply chains. What makes this even more concerning is the regressive nature of this taxation. The poorest — daily-wage workers and labourers — spend disproportionately more on alcohol, while the state grows dependent on their addiction to meet budgetary targets. The paradox sharpens further when one looks at class. Elite society indulges alcohol in private clubs and gated communities, often with imported spirits and minimal state scrutiny. For the working class, Tasmac is the only accessible vendor, public, noisy, often unsafe. The state's liquor policy therefore not only sustains addiction, it stratifies it. The poor buy what the state sells; the rich import what the state ignores. There is no easy solution. Prohibition is neither feasible nor desirable, as Gujarat's failed experiment shows. But surely there is a middle path, one that involves decentralising liquor retail, investing in de-addiction centres, raising awareness about substance abuse, and capping the density of outlets in urban and rural areas. Most importantly, the state must confront its moral conflict: it cannot pose as a public health crusader while acting as the chief purveyor of addiction. Tamil Nadu's policymakers must ask themselves a basic question. Should the health of its people depend on the sale of what ails them? (The writer is an advocate in the Madras high court) Email your feedback with name and address to
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
10000 IDF Soldiers Pay Heavy Price For Netanyahu's War; Sleep Loss, Mood Swings & PTSD...
Supreme Court Told Bihar Voter Roll Revision a 'Grave Fraud on Voters' The Supreme Court on Saturday heard serious allegations against the Election Commission's special intensive revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and the RJD, claimed the process was marred by irregularities — with BLOs allegedly forging voter signatures, dead individuals shown as having submitted forms, and genuine voters excluded without notice. The petitioners argued that the EC's numbers were unreliable as forms were collected without proper documentation, putting lakhs at risk of disenfranchisement just ahead of the state elections. They also questioned why the EC rejected Aadhaar and ration cards as valid proof.#supremecourt #electioncommission #biharelections #voterfraud #electoralrolls #rjd #adr #voterlist #disenfranchisement #biharnews #manojjha #ashoklavasa #form6 #voteridentity #bloirregularities 152 views | 1 hour ago
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Udaipur Files producer Amit Jani given Y-category security amid threats
In the wake of the ongoing controversy and threats around 'Udaipur Files', a film based on Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal's murder, the producer of the movie, Amit Jani, has been provided Y-category security, an official statement said on movie is based on Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was murdered by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous for allegedly sharing a post supporting former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma's controversial on-air remarks on Prophet Muhammad in per the Y-category security protocol, Jani will be accompanied by a total of 11 personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The security cover will be provided to Jani for movement within Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. This came days after the Supreme Court allowed the producer, director and the son of Kanhaiya Lal to approach the police and seek protection as they alleged threat to their top court noted that if the threats are found to be serious in nature, concerned authorities must take steps to ensure their safety.'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' got the go-ahead for a release in theatres on August 8, 2025 after a Supreme Court ruling directed the Delhi High Court to address challenges against the government's approval of the film's court directed those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Centre's revisional order, which had allowed the movie to be screened with six Bharat Shrinate announced the new release date after the Supreme Court's decision, signalling the end of the legal journey for the film's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting directed the makers of Udaipur Files to implement six specific changes before its release, in line with the recommendations of a screening slated for release on July 11, 2025, 'Udaipur Files' faced many delays due to censorship and legal troubles. The film, featuring Vijay Raaz as Kanhaiya Lal, is produced by Amit Jani and has generated considerable interest among audiences and critics tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet case was probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.- EndsMust Watch
