The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments retarding West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox on January 13th, 2026. Both cases center on the legality of student sport bans and transgender rights, meaning the Court’s decision can have far-reaching consequences similar to Roe v. Wade.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Three years ago, West Virginia banned transgender girls from participating in all student sports. The law barred Becky Pepper-Jackson from playing cross-country or track with her friends in middle school.
With the support of the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP, Becky took the West Virginia law to court and argued it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. She was completely barred despite exhibiting zero physiological changes associated with male puberty due to taking puberty blockers.
Little v. Hecox
In Idaho, HB 500 was signed into law by Governor Brad Little to replace the state’s already existing restrictions on transgender students participating in organized sports. HB 500 established Idaho as the first state to outright ban transgender student athletes, which other states like West Virginia later followed.
Like B.P.J., Lindsay Hecox sued with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLC due to Idaho’s decision to completely bar transgender students from participating in all sports under any circumstances under the guise of protecting women’s sports.
What Makes These Cases Different
Compared to previous court cases regarding transgender athletes, these cases focus on whether it is constitutional to completely bar transgender individuals.
States have previously been allowed to regulate transgender participation. For example, Idaho once required transgender women to present documentation of at least one year of hormone replacement therapy to participate in sports. These newer laws go further by banning transgender people entirely, without allowing participation even as their sex assigned at birth.
In consideration of other civil rights cases, the notion seems laughable. It should not be constitutional to bar an entire demographic from an activity without caveats.
That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule rationally. West Virginia and Idaho are backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization also responsible for the overturn of abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
ADF has framed both cases as protecting women’s sports and athletic fairness. However, fairness would involve regulations that allow transgender athletes to participate in some fashion, not banning them entirely.
It is expected that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Alliance Defending Freedom due to the Court’s recent pattern of backing conservative parties regardless of outlying factors. This mirrors the Trump administration’s executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” and new restrictions imposed by the NCAA and U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committees.
The 19th has reported that neither B.P.J. nor Hecox fit the conservative narrative of “scary transgender athletes.”
Lindsay Hecox failed to make the cut for her track and field team at Boise State University before Idaho law removed her eligibility entirely. Becky Pepper-Jackson never experienced male puberty and is physically no different from her cisgender classmates.
Transgender Participation in Sports Is Rare
It is worth noting that transgender people rarely participate in sports due to stigma and discrimination. NCAA President Charlie Baker stated that out of 500,000 college athletes in the United States, fewer than 10 were openly transgender.
Assuming the Supreme Court rules in favor of ADF, this decision would not create a national ban on transgender students in sports.
- Students in equality-driven states like California, Washington, and New York would not be impacted.
- Transgender individuals participating in competitive sports beyond school wouldn’t be affected either, regardless of state. Those regulations are determined by their professional leagues.
- Transgender individuals in non-competitive sports outside of educational settings also won’t be affected, such as community sport leagues.
- States’ individual ability to ban transgender students would be cemented for the time being, unless a better case is presented..
For the time being, we just have to wait to see what exactly the Supreme Court decides. It is expected that the Supreme Court will formally announce the ruling before June 2026.