This is article 2 of 2 as it addresses the other case the Court heard today on Transgender Athletes. Justices examine whether Title IX permits schools to define sex strictly by biological traits for athletic teams.
TLDR
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026, in West Virginia v. B.P.J.. The Justices must decide if a state law preventing transgender girls from joining female sports teams violates Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. West Virginia argues that Title IX explicitly permits sports teams separated by biological sex to ensure competitive fairness. The respondent represents a transgender girl who argues the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status despite her having no physical advantage. The U.S. government argued in support of West Virginia. Justices focused heavily on the definition of “sex” in the 1972 statute and the “zero-sum” nature of athletic competition. The final ruling will determine how schools nationwide regulate sports participation for transgender students.
Case Information
Case Name: West Virginia, et al. v. B.P.J., by her next friend and mother, Heather Jackson
Docket Number: No. 24-43
Date of Argument: January 13, 2026
The Supreme Court appears divided on whether West Virginia’s ban on transgender athletes in girls’ sports violates federal law. Oral arguments focused on whether Title IX allows schools to define sex strictly by biology or if such definitions result in unlawful discrimination. The Justices questioned if the 1972 civil rights law mandates inclusion for transgender students who lack male physiological advantages.
This case forces the Court to interpret “sex” within Title IX more than 50 years after Congress enacted the statute. A ruling for West Virginia affirms state authority to segregate sports based on reproductive biology. A ruling for B.P.J. limits that authority and could mandate access for transgender students who undergo medical transition.
What is West Virginia’s legal argument?
West Virginia Solicitor General Michael R. Williams argued that states have a long history of assigning students to sports teams by sex. He stated that maintaining separate teams ensures safety and fairness for girls. Williams contended that Title IX expressly permits sex-separated teams because biological sex matters in athletics.
The state relied on the text and history of the statute. Williams argued that the ordinary understanding of “sex” in 1972 was biological sex. He noted that federal regulations specifically authorize sex-separated teams in the context of athletics. Williams claimed that the respondent seeks to replace biological sex with gender identity. He argued this turns a law meant to protect girls into a law that denies them opportunities.
How does the United States government position itself?
The Department of Justice appeared as amicus curiae supporting West Virginia. Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, argued that Title IX regulations expressly authorize sex-separated teams. He stated that the word “sex” in those regulations refers to biological sex in the reproductive sense.
Mooppan argued that testosterone levels do not matter under the text of the regulations. He asserted that separating sports based on sex is justified by biological differences between men and women. If schools allow biological males to play on female teams, he argued they undermine the justification for separation. Mooppan clarified that the law classifies based on biological sex rather than transgender status.
What is the argument for the transgender student?
Joshua A. Block represented the respondent, B.P.J. He argued that the state law treats B.P.J. differently from other girls on the basis of sex and harms her. Block contended that B.P.J. never went through male puberty and has no physiological advantage over other girls.
Block argued that the law acts as a total exclusion for B.P.J. rather than a separation. He stated that unlike a cisgender boy who is excluded from a girls’ team, B.P.J. loses all athletic opportunity. Block emphasized that the Court should not adopt a broad definition of sex that preempts state choices. He urged the Court to look at the specific facts regarding physiological advantage rather than issuing a sweeping legal conclusion.
How did the Justices question the definition of sex?
Justice Thomas asked how West Virginia defined “sex” under Title IX. Williams responded that it refers to biological sex as understood in 1972. Justice Gorsuch pressed on the text of the statute. He noted that Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” and asked why that does not cover individuals treated differently due to sex.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if a sex-based classification is necessarily a transgender classification. Williams argued they are distinct because the law applies equally to a biological boy identifying as a boy. Justice Alito asked how the Court can decide discrimination without a clear statutory definition of “sex”.
What concerns did the Justices raise about fairness and competition?
Justice Kavanaugh focused on the “zero-sum” nature of sports. He noted that if a transgender girl makes a team, another girl might lose a spot or playing time. He asked if states could reasonably interpret “sex” differently to manage these conflicts.
Justice Barrett asked if West Virginia’s theory would allow separate classrooms for math based on performance differences. Williams conceded that inherent differences exist in sports but likely not in other contexts like chess. Justice Sotomayor questioned if a violation exists if science shows no physiological difference between cisgender and transgender girls.
What happens next?
The Court submitted the case for decision at 1:22 p.m.. A written opinion is expected before the Court enters its summer recess in late June or early July 2026. The ruling will establish the federal standard for transgender participation in K-12 and collegiate athletics.
Commentary
The oral arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J. reveal a Court struggling to apply 1970s statutory text to 2020s social realities. The rigid textualist approach usually favored by conservative Justices hits a snag here. Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex.” If a student is excluded solely because of their biological sex, that fits the textual definition of discrimination. Justice Gorsuch identified this tension early. He questioned why a “similarly situated” analysis is necessary when the statute essentially mandates equal treatment.
However, the “Javits Amendment” provides a massive textual counterweight. This 1974 amendment specifically directed the implementation of Title IX in athletics. It recognized that sports are unique. Congress implicitly authorized sex separation in this one specific area. This allows the Court to treat sports differently than math classes or employment. The Petitioner utilized this effectively. They argued that if you accept sex separation as legal, you must accept a definition of sex that makes the separation meaningful.
The focus on “zero-sum” games by Justice Kavanaugh suggests a pragmatic path forward for the majority. Unlike a workplace where an employer can often add another desk, a sports team has a roster limit. Allowing a biological male to compete takes a spot away from a biological female. This tangible harm allows the Court to distinguish this case from Bostock v. Clayton County, which dealt with employment. The majority seems poised to lean on this distinction to uphold the West Virginia law.
Finally, the refusal of the United States to rely on the Spending Clause is a strategic gamble. The Spending Clause requires Congress to speak with a clear voice when placing conditions on federal funds. Title IX is Spending Clause legislation. If the Court finds the definition of “sex” ambiguous, they could rule that West Virginia did not have “clear notice” that banning transgender athletes would cost them funding. The U.S. government avoided this to prevent weakening Title IX in other areas. This leaves the Court to decide the case on the harder statutory grounds.
Sources
• Transcript of Oral Argument: West Virginia v. B.P.J., No. 24-43, Supreme Court of the United States, January 13, 2026.
Like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for breaking news and case information.
Disclaimer: This article was assisted by AI. This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
Tags: Title IX, Supreme Court, Transgender Sports, West Virginia v BPJ, Equal Protection