Female Athletes and Republican Attorneys General Rally Ahead of Supreme Court Cases on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports

What's happening

A coalition of female athletes and Republican attorneys general convened in Washington, D.C., on Monday to advocate for the preservation of women’s sports as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear two pivotal cases. The gathering coincided with the court’s scheduled oral arguments on Tuesday in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., cases that have drawn national attention due to their focus on the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. The coalition emphasized the importance of maintaining fair competition and protecting opportunities for biological female athletes.

These cases arise from laws enacted in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women from competing in female sports categories. Supporters argue these laws are necessary to uphold the integrity of women’s athletics and ensure equal opportunities for cisgender female athletes. Opponents, however, contend that such restrictions discriminate against transgender individuals and violate their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.

At the rally, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines spoke passionately about her experiences and concerns, highlighting what she described as exclusionary practices that harm female athletes. Gaines criticized the political forces she believes have diminished women’s rights in sports, stating her frustration with the perceived erasure of protections for biological women. Her remarks underscored the emotional and personal dimensions of the debate, reflecting broader tensions over gender identity and fairness in competitive sports.

The event also featured statements from eight Republican attorneys general, including Raúl Labrador of Idaho and John McCuskey of West Virginia, who voiced strong support for the contested laws. McCuskey framed the legislation as grounded in constitutional principles and common sense, emphasizing a commitment to protecting women and girls. Labrador echoed this sentiment, expressing pride in Idaho’s stance and the coalition of states backing similar measures. More than 20 state attorneys general have filed briefs supporting Idaho and West Virginia, signaling significant political and legal backing for these policies.

What's at stake

The Supreme Court’s review of these cases follows its recent decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, where the court upheld a Tennessee law banning certain transgender-related medical procedures for minors. Chief Justice John Roberts, in that ruling, noted that the court’s role is not to assess the wisdom of laws but to ensure they comply with constitutional protections. This precedent may influence how the justices approach the current cases, as they weigh whether the Idaho and West Virginia laws unlawfully discriminate or serve a legitimate purpose in safeguarding women’s sports.

Critics of the laws argue that they perpetuate discrimination against transgender athletes and infringe upon their rights to participate fully in society. They maintain that these restrictions undermine inclusivity and equal treatment, potentially causing harm to transgender individuals. Supporters counter that allowing transgender women to compete against biological females creates an uneven playing field, disadvantaging cisgender female athletes and threatening the fairness of women’s sports. This clash highlights the complex balance between protecting civil rights and ensuring competitive equity.

The Supreme Court’s decision in these cases could have far-reaching consequences for sports policies nationwide. A ruling upholding the laws may encourage other states to enact similar restrictions, reshaping the landscape of women’s athletics and transgender participation. Conversely, striking down the laws could affirm protections for transgender athletes and limit states’ ability to regulate sports participation based on gender identity. The justices face the challenge of interpreting constitutional and statutory protections while addressing deeply divisive social issues.

Oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. are set to begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday. Observers anticipate a closely watched ruling that could set a legal precedent impacting not only sports but broader questions of gender identity and civil rights. The court’s decision will likely influence legislative and policy debates across the country, affecting athletes, schools, and governing bodies for years to come.

Looking ahead, stakeholders on all sides will closely monitor the Supreme Court’s deliberations and eventual ruling. The outcome may prompt new legislation, legal challenges, or adjustments in sports organizations’ eligibility rules. As the nation grapples with evolving understandings of gender and fairness, the court’s decision will be a critical moment in defining the rights and protections of both female and transgender athletes.

Why it matters

The cases address whether laws barring transgender women from female sports violate constitutional equal protection and Title IX. Supporters argue these laws protect fairness and opportunities for biological female athletes. Opponents contend the laws discriminate against transgender individuals and infringe on their rights.

The Supreme Court’s prior ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti provides a framework emphasizing constitutional compliance over policy judgments. The decisions could influence nationwide policies on transgender participation in sports and broader civil rights issues. The court must balance competing interests of fairness in athletics and protections against discrimination.

The rulings may set legal precedents affecting future legislation and sports governance.

Key facts & context

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases: Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Both cases challenge state laws prohibiting transgender women from competing in women’s sports. The oral arguments are scheduled for 10 a.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday.

A coalition of female athletes and Republican attorneys general rallied in Washington, D.C., ahead of the hearings. More than 20 state attorneys general have filed briefs supporting the Idaho and West Virginia laws. Former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines spoke at the rally, expressing concerns about the impact on female athletes.

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Tennessee law restricting transgender-related medical treatments for minors in U.S. v. Skrmetti. Chief Justice John Roberts stated the court’s role is to ensure laws comply with constitutional protections, not to judge their wisdom. The cases involve interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title IX.

The outcome could affect how states regulate transgender athletes’ participation in sports nationwide. The debate highlights tensions between protecting women’s sports and ensuring transgender rights. The cases have drawn significant public and political attention, reflecting broader societal divisions.

Timeline & key developments

2026-01-12: Female Athletes, Republican AGs Rally to Defend Women's Sports at Supreme Court. Additional reporting on this topic is available in our broader archive and will continue to shape this timeline as new developments emerge.

Primary sources

• supremecourt.gov PDF
• supremecourt.gov PDF

Further reading & references

• (Additional background links will appear here as we cover this topic.)