Supreme Court says states can ban males from girls’ sports
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states have the authority to prohibit males who identify as females from participating in girls’ and women's sporting competitions, saying such policies do not violate Title IX civil rights antidiscrimination law.
In a decision released Tuesday morning in the case of State of West Virginia v. B.P.J., the high court upheld West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act of 2021.
The decision also upheld a similar law passed by Idaho known as the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which was the focus of the case of Lindsay Hecox et al. v. Bradley Little, et al.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, being joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.
“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females?” wrote Kavanaugh.
“In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes.”
The justice wrote that "Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex,” which “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.”
“In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes — namely, the inherent physical differences between biological women and biological men,” he continued.
“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion that concurred in part with the judgment and dissented in part, being joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Additionally, Jackson authored a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Sotomayor wrote that while she agrees "that B. P. J.’s Title IX claim fails,” she believes that the court opinion made the wrong conclusion on “B. P. J.’s equal protection claim.”
“[T]he Equal Protection Clause demands much more when a State deploys a sex classification to achieve legislative aims. Perhaps West Virginia could meet those demands. Perhaps not,” Sotomayor said.
“In either event, because unresolved factual questions prevent the Court from assessing the merits of B. P. J.’s equal protection claim at this time, the Court should allow the District Court to address those factual questions in the first instance.”
Over the past few years, around half of states have enacted laws prohibiting male students who identify as female from competing on girls-only athletic teams, citing concerns about fairness.
Trans-identified male athletes have been awarded more than 1,900 gold medals while competing in various girls' and women's athletic competitions since 1980, according to a report shared with The Christian Post by the Christian conservative advocacy group Concerned Women for America.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the two cases challenging the state laws of Idaho and West Virginia, as lower appeals courts had offered different rulings on them.
In advance of oral arguments, the editorial board of The Washington Post expressed their support for the state laws, saying that “the laws being challenged are reasonable concessions to immutable reality.”
“Is there evidence that males are better athletes than females? Yes, scads. Do those advantages persist after hormone treatments? Scientists have looked into the matter, and yes,” stated the editors.
“Separate sports divisions exist to mitigate those biological gaps. It’s impossible to construct a coherent case for unfettered trans inclusion that fits those facts, without ultimately arguing for abolishing women’s athletics entirely.”
