The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on October 3, 2023, regarding two significant cases from Idaho and West Virginia that challenge the constitutionality of laws prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. The outcomes of these cases could have profound implications for similar legislation across the United States.
In West Virginia, Becky Pepper Jackson, a high school track and field athlete, filed a lawsuit in 2021 after being barred from participating on girls’ teams. Jackson, who has publicly identified as a girl since elementary school and has taken puberty blockers to prevent male puberty, argues that the state’s ban is discriminatory.
The case in Idaho involves Lindsay Hecox, a former college runner, who challenged the state’s ban in 2020 after being denied the opportunity to try out for women’s teams. Although Hecox later expressed a desire to withdraw from the lawsuit, citing discomfort with the attention it garnered, Idaho officials have continued to pursue the case.
Both laws have faced opposition in federal courts, which determined that they violate federal civil rights protections. In light of these rulings, the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho are appealing to the Supreme Court to reverse them and allow the bans to take effect. The court’s decision may impact similar laws enacted in at least 25 other states.
Supporters of the bans assert that categorizing sports by biological sex is essential for ensuring fairness and safety in women’s athletics. They argue that sex and gender identity should not be considered interchangeable, especially in competitive contexts. Proponents contend that allowing transgender girls to compete against cisgender girls could hinder equal opportunities for female athletes, directly challenging the principles outlined in Title IX.
Medical research indicates that testosterone exposure during male puberty can result in increased muscle mass and larger heart and lung capacity, advantages that supporters of the bans highlight. Jackson’s legal team counters these claims, emphasizing that she has not undergone male puberty and is currently on estrogen hormones, which they argue negates any physical advantages typically associated with male puberty.
The issue has gained national attention, particularly following actions taken during the administration of former President Donald Trump. In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to withdraw funding from schools that permit transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports, framing the policy as a means to protect fairness for female athletes. Following this directive, the NCAA announced restrictions for transgender women, marking a significant shift in the organization’s stance on inclusion in sports.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear these crucial cases, the implications of their decision could reshape the landscape of sports and civil rights for transgender individuals in the United States. The ruling will likely resonate beyond the immediate states involved, influencing policies and debates in numerous jurisdictions across the country.
