Supreme Court hearing on trans sports bans focuses on "biological advantages" - LGBTQ Nation
Briefly

Supreme Court hearing on trans sports bans focuses on "biological advantages" - LGBTQ Nation
"Demonstrators rally outside of the Supreme Court as the justices hear oral arguments in two cases related to transgender athlete participation in sports in Washington, DC, on Jan. 13, 2026. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., seek to decide whether laws that limit participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. | © Jack Gruber / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images"
"The cases before the court are West Virginia v. B.P.J., which involves 15-year-old West Virginia shot-putter and discus thrower Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has publicly identified as female since the third grade; and Little v. Hecox, which involves Lindsay Hecox, a 25-year-old Idaho resident who sued after Boise State University refused to let her try out for the women's track and cross-country teams."
"Both won lower court injunctions that allowed them to compete, despite their states' bans on trans female athletes. Hecox ultimately chose not to try out for her university's teams, something she and her lawyer argued made her case moot, though the Supreme Court justices said on Tuesday that they'll decide on that point in their forthcoming ruling. Because both Pepper-Jackson and Hecox began hormone blockers before puberty, the court arguments focused on whether trans girls and women have physical advantages over cisgender girls and women. Lawyers supporting trans athletes said that medical transitioning erases such advantages; the lawyers in favor of state bans disagreed."
The Supreme Court held three hours of oral arguments on whether states may bar transgender girls from competing on girls' and women's school sports teams. Two cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, involve a 15-year-old shot-putter and discus thrower and a 25-year-old college athlete who sued after being denied tryouts. Both obtained lower court injunctions allowing competition; one plaintiff later declined to try out, raising a mootness question for the Court. Arguments centered on whether prepubertal hormone blockers and medical transitioning eliminate physical advantages, with advocates and opponents presenting conflicting views.
Read at LGBTQ Nation
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]