The US Supreme Court this week heard its first arguments in a major set of cases that could shape the future of trans rights far beyond school sports. Justices considered West Virginia v BPJ and Little v Hecox, which challenge state laws banning trans students from participating in school athletics. West Virginia and Idaho are among 27 states that restrict trans youth from playing sports, often citing claims of inherent athletic advantage. Arguing for Idaho, solicitor general Alan Hurst said the state separates teams based on sex because, he claimed, sex is what matters in sports.
He added that it “correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages, like size, muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity.” Hurst acknowledged there is discrimination against transgender people, but argued the bans are justified. Liberal justices, however, raised concerns that these laws amount to sex discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “There’s no question here that a male who identifies as a female … is being excluded from a female sport. By its nature, that’s a sex classification.”
Conservative justice Neil Gorsuch said determining whether trans people are a protected class is a key issue in the case. The Trump administration argued that states may enforce sex-based rules against biological males who identify as female, pointing to the small number of trans athletes nationwide. The NCAA has said fewer than 10 out of more than 550,000 college athletes are openly trans. Advocates argue that targeting such a small group is unjustifiable. Legal experts warn the court’s conservative majority may uphold the bans. The decision is expected in the spring or early summer of 2026. This ruling could affect trans rights well beyond sports.
