WASHINGTON D.C. January 13, 2026 – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard over three hours of oral arguments in two consolidated cases challenging state laws that bar transgender girls and women from competing on female school and college sports teams. The cases center on laws in Idaho (Hecox v. Little) and West Virginia, which require student athletes to participate on teams corresponding to their biological sex.
Challengers, including transgender athletes and advocacy groups such as the ACLU, argue that the bans violate Title IX — the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education — as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. They contend the laws discriminate on the basis of gender identity and subject transgender students to invasive scrutiny.
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, intervened in support of the states. DOJ attorneys argued that states have the authority to enact such policies to ensure fairness, safety, and equal opportunities for biological females in women’s sports.
In a post on X yesterday, Bondi emphasized the administration’s stance:
“Today, my attorneys are arguing a crucial Supreme Court case pushing back against the trans agenda. Our position: states have the authority to ban men from participating in women’s sports. This is common sense. We are fighting to protect girls and women in the locker room and on the playing field — and we will be successful.”
During the arguments, a majority of justices — particularly the court’s conservative members — appeared skeptical of the challenges and inclined to uphold the state bans. Observers noted pointed questioning toward lawyers opposing the laws, suggesting the court may rule that the policies do not constitute unlawful discrimination.
No decision was issued Tuesday, with a ruling expected later in the term. The cases mark the court’s latest engagement with transgender rights issues, amid a broader national debate over gender identity in athletics. At least 27 states have enacted similar restrictions since 2020.
The oral arguments drew significant attention, reflecting deep divisions on fairness in women’s sports and protections for transgender youth.
About The Author
