The upcoming Supreme Court case on transgenderism

The docket for the B.P.J. case is here

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-43.html

These cases are discussed here:

Supreme Court will hear cases in January on transgender athletes, gun rights, and Trump’s firing of Fed governor - SCOTUSblog https://share.google/letw0rFT8Z7DP3ayR , 

Tuesday, January 13, in this particular case.

We almost surely know how the three left-leaning female justices (Kagan (Jewish), Sotomayor (Hispanic), and Jackson (Black)) will rule - all in for transgenderism, however they justify it.

Likewise the four right-leaning justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).

The question is: 

how will the two centrist justices, Roberts and Barrett, rule?

-----

There are two questions which may have greater significance for women than for men:

A) Whether biological men should be allowed to compete with biological women, in sports leagues that were intended specifically and explicitly to be limited to women.

B) Similarly, whether biological men should be allowed into spaces such as locker rooms and dressing rooms that have been traditionally reserved for real women.

(A personal opinion: I don't think women, of any age, should be forced into nude situations with people of the opposite sex. Likewise for men.)

There are four women on the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see how they divide on these issues.

It seems probable that the generally conservative woman, Amy Barrett, will take the generally conservative position on this issue.

Will the three women appointed by Democratic presidents block vote on the left side?

How will they justify their position, if they take that side?

-------------

2026-01-06

Here's a look ahead at the January 13 SCOTUS hearing:

Next Week's SCOTUS Hearings Could Redefine Women's Sports — What You Need To Know | OutKick https://share.google/WbOe4DbzJabJCMhVQ

"The justices will hear arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., 

both of which put state laws protecting female-only sports teams directly on trial. 

At the heart of both cases is a simple but hugely consequential question: 

Can states protect women's sports or not?"

...

West Virginia [is] asking the Supreme Court to answer two critical questions: 

Does Title IX require schools to allow transgender-identifying males to compete in girls' sports?

Does the Constitution prevent states from defining girls' teams based on biological sex?"

-------------------

A detailed legal look at the relations between transgender status, suspect class, and heightened scrutiny 

is given by Alabama's Attorney General Steve Marshall here (paywall)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/12/transgender-sports-case-supreme-court/

and here (no paywall)

https://dnyuz.com/2026/01/12/the-supreme-courts-chance-to-stop-punting-on-transgender-status/

Marshall writes:

"When lower courts deem transgender status to be a suspect classification, 

the challenged law must survive “heightened scrutiny.” 

This is a legal standard that requires the government to show that 

the law serves an important public interest and is substantially related to serving that interest."

My comment:

The fact a law must be passed by both levels of a state's legislature and signed by the state's governor would seem to indicate that it 

"serves an important public interest."

-------

More looks ahead:

"What the Supreme Court Is About to Decide for Our Daughters"

https://open.substack.com/pub/peachyradfem/p/what-the-supreme-court-is-about-to

"17 Simple Things You Need to Know About the Two Women's Sports Cases Coming Up at the Supreme Court"

https://open.substack.com/pub/strongerwomen/p/17-simple-things-you-need-to-know

========================================

The hearing now having concluded, 

the nine justices are left with some difficult decisions.

Difficult for several reasons.

#1. These cases thrust into the judicial arena a number of issues that should have been resolved by other parts of society.

Most glaringly: Who is a woman?

It should not be up to judges to determine or decide that.

That should not be a legal issue.

That is a matter for science (biology), supported by a broad social agreement.

(There are some intersex people, people whose biology is either mixed or abnormal, but they are a tiny minority. 

And their situation is different from the issue of gender.)

I totally blame the transgender movement for causing the disagreement and confusion over this issue.

Sex is not gender, sex is a matter of biology, 

while gender indeed is a social construct.

So much confusion has been caused by confusing the two.

#2. Actually, this one should not be at all a difficult issue to resolve:

What does the evidence show on differences between men and women relative to athletic ability?

We have enormous evidence on that.

Just check who holds the world records in various athletic fields.

The difference between men and women is stark and undeniable.

Can giving hormones to people affect their athletic potential?

Who knows?

There is no conclusive evidence on that.

Until there is, it is premature to assume anything in that regard.

(And an issue that is not before the Supreme Court, but I think is significant to the larger society:

Who should pay for those hormone treatments?

I don't think the burden should be on society, whether via insurance or government programs.

I know "major medical associations" say such treatments are "medically necessary," but that assessment has been challenged, even by some doctors.)

#3. How broadly or narrowly should the decision be tailored?

I have nothing useful to say on that, other than to observe that is an issue.