Does a biological boy who transitions to become a girl have a constitutional right to compete in girls’ sports? Twenty-seven states have laws or policies forbidding this, but two appellate courts say that’s wrong. Now it’s up to the legal refs at the Supreme Court to reverse those faulty calls.
On [January 13, 2026], the Justices will hear appeals from Idaho and West Virginia. Little v. Hecox involves an adult biological male, Lindsay Hecox, who sought to compete in women’s track and cross-country at Boise State University. West Virginia v. B.P.J. concerns a teenager, B.P.J., a track and cross-country athlete. Both states have barred biological males from women’s teams.
The athletes’ briefs to the Justices dispute that transgender players have an unqualified advantage over female competitors. B.P.J., who was taking a type of estrogen by the end of sixth grade, has participated in two noncontact sports: running cross-country on a team that doesn’t cut anyone … and doing shot put and discus ….
The states disagree. Idaho argues that male athletic advantages begin before puberty, citing figures that average boys ages 9 to 10, at the 50th percentile, complete “14.8% more sit-ups in 60 seconds” and go “13.4% farther in a 9-minute run.” West Virginia says last spring “B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the State in discus and eighth in shot put.”
…
Related on the SLP
Will genetic cyber-athletes come to dominate sports?
Deadly ‘faith healing’ exemption: Idaho remains the only state shielding parents from prosecution for replacing medical care with prayer or spirits—even if their child dies
Gene doping in sports entails challenges and dangers but may not be so dopey
Lindsay Hecox and B.P.J. don’t dispute the division of men’s and women’s sports in general. But they argue it isn’t lawful to exclude every transgender athlete. They say this violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws.”
