WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The Supreme Court heard arguments today concerning whether males are allowed to compete in girls’ sports, with most justices, even allegedly conservative ones, using terms like “transgender women” and “trans girls.”
This morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two related cases. One involves a gender-confused male who wished to compete on the Boise State University women’s cross-country and track teams in violation of Idaho’s law on “transgender” athletes.
Another considers a similar prohibition in West Virginia. This case involves a gender-confused male middle schooler who competes in track and field events against girls. The cases are Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J and both are being argued by the ACLU.
Challengers, led by the left-wing ACLU, claim that such laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as Title IX, a federal law that ensures female students have the same educational and extracurricular opportunities as male students.
Meanwhile, advocates for biological fairness, including medical experts and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), have urged the court to protect sex distinctions in sports.
At times during the questioning, the left-leaning justices appeared to sound upset and hostile while questioning defendants of biological reality. On multiple instances, Justice Ketanji Jackson sounded agitated and began raising her voice at an attorney for the Trump administration.
The first case, Little v. Hecox, took an unusually long two hours to hear.
Little v. Hecox
“Sex is what matters in sports,” Idaho’s attorney argued to begin the day.
Idaho’s law “treats all males equally and all females equally,” Solicitor General Alan Hurst said.
Hurst also criticized the plaintiff, “Lindsay” Hecox, for trying to claim “mootness” as the case proceeded and it appeared the gender-confused male would lose his case.
After a brief question from Justice Clarence Thomas, left-wing Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Hurst. However, Sotomayor switched between properly identifying Hecox as a male and using “she” pronouns for the man.
“No one disputes there is a scientific basis” for the law, Hurst said.
Left-wing Justice Elena Kagan also expressed criticism of the law, as did Justice Ketanji Jackson, who infamously struggled to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing. At one point during the questioning, Jackson also sounded agitated and began raising her voice at Hurst, the attorney for Idaho.
Justice Gorsuch then intervened. He previously found a “right” to cross-dress at work in the Bostock decision and asked today about “discrimination” against “transgender” people.
Justice Sotomayor asked a brief question about legislative history and then went back to the “mootness question.” Justice Thomas questioned conflicting statements Hecox had made during the trial, and Sotomayor asked a clarifying statement.
Justices question both sides about Idaho law, gender-confused athletes
Justice Thomas then asked if there is a difference between a gender-confused athlete and someone who is just “lousy” at tennis and wants to play against women.
Hurst said there is no real difference and argued the other side did not have a good explanation for this question.
Sotomayor continued on to question Hurst about mootness, appearing to spend most of her time on why the court should grant Hecox’s request. There is a precedent for keeping names on the case, Hurst said.
— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) January 13, 2026
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about specific laws on “transgender” language in laws, referring to so-called “transgender women” but also calling them “biological males.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett then asked about a “hypothetical” six-year-old boy who “identified” as a girl and wanted to play in sports, raising the issue of testosterone and physical differences. Justice Barrett, despite being Catholic, used the terms “trans girls” and “trans boys.”
At such a young age, teams could just offer co-ed sports too, Hurst said.
Justice Jackson continued on to question Hurst, asking about “transgender status” and so-called “transgender women.”
Hurst regularly cited the U.S. v. Skrmetti decision that affirmed states could prohibit minors from receiving permanently damaging drugs and surgeries.
Jackson then went back to the “mootness” question.
Justice Ketanji Jackson asks about ‘mootness.’ pic.twitter.com/8gI0AWAK8b
— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) January 13, 2026
The Trump administration also argued in favor of Idaho’s law. Hashim Moopan, arguing for the Trump administration, made similar arguments as Hurst.
He said Idaho’s law does not have to be absolutely perfect to survive the challenge, but just reasonably good.
Sotomayor continued on, appearing to angrily question Moopan, as did Jackson.
Kathleen Hartnett then went on to defend the law on behalf of the ACLU, nearly an hour and a half into the hearing. Hartnett is an attorney with the Cooley law firm.
Conservative justices question Hartnett
Conservative justices asked more questions of Hartnett, with Justices Thomas and Alito leading off questions. Chief Justice John Roberts also questioned Hartnett.
She appeared to argue for a narrow ruling, presumably in a bid to appeal to the six right-leaning justices who can ultimately decide the case.
— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) January 13, 2026
Hartnett said schools can have separate teams for boys and girls. Justice Samuel Alito asked her if that doesn’t require there to be a definition of what boys and girls are.
“We do not have a definition for the court,” Hartnett said.
A “birth-sex male,” according to Hartnett, can be barred from a sports team if he has never taken any female hormone drugs.
Harnett also claimed Idaho’s law was an overreaction and not “rational.”
Justice Kavanaugh, a girls’ basketball coach, appeared critical of the ACLU’s position.
Hartnett argued Hecox did not have a biological advantage after taking drugs.
Justice Barrett also asked about “trans boys” and “trans girls.”
Kavanaugh also appeared to try to urge constraint in the Supreme Court imposing one standard “at this point,” either striking down all laws prohibiting gender-confused athletes or requiring all states to prohibit gender-confused men from competing against girls.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Many of the same arguments were rehashed for West Virginia v. B.P.J., with liberal and conservative justices asking related questions.
This case, however, focused on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Kavanaugh asked about the controversial Bostock case as well. West Virginia, its attorney pointed out, does not prohibit gender-confused individuals from competing in sports altogether. Men just cannot compete against women.
The left-leaning justices appeared to calm down and address their questions in a more professional manner in the second case.
Justices also pressed the Trump administration on its position that states must sex-segregate sports. Moopan addressed hypothetical arguments but also pointed out that the question is not specifically being litigated in this case.
This hearing wrapped up a little quicker, with about 90 minutes spent on the case.