Yvette Butler (Indiana University Maurer School of Law) has posted West Virginia v. B.P.J.: Animus, Alternative Facts, and Judicial Review (in SCOTUS 2026: Major Decisions and Developments of the US Supreme Court, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In its 2026 term, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases asking whether state laws excluding all transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ sports teams violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and/or Title IX. Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Idaho (in Little) and West Virginia (in B.P.J.) framed the cases as addressing safety and fairness for cisgender women’s opportunities in sports. The plaintiffs, Lindsey Hecox and B.P.J., claimed that they were being discriminated against because they are transgender. The cases were consolidated as West Virginia v. B.P.J. Hecox attempted to exit the litigation and have her case declared moot, citing harassment and pledging not to participate in Idaho women’s athletics. Only the majority treated her case as live. Accepting the states’ arguments that the cases were fundamentally about fairness in athletic competition, by a 6-3 vote with the majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court ruled that neither state violated Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause. This chapter focuses on the Equal Protection decision.
Recommended!
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum