Several justices of the Supreme Court signaled openness to arguments in favor of legally protecting women’s sports Jan. 13 as they listened to more than three hours of oral arguments in two closely watched cases challenging state laws that bar male athletes from competing with women and girls.

The cases — Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — challenge laws the two states enacted that classify school sports teams based on sex rather than “gender identity,” as CatholicVote previously reported. Idaho adopted the nation’s first such law in 2020, and West Virginia followed in 2021. Since then, at least 25 states have passed similar measures, according to AP News, fueling nationwide debates over the future of women’s athletics.

>> What to know about the two SCOTUS cases shaping the future of women’s sports <<

The oral arguments repeatedly returned to fairness, safety, and the purpose of sex-based protections in athletics. Several justices emphasized that biological differences can affect competition, and reports during the hearing suggested that the court was receptive to the states’ defenses. An AP News analysis said the overall tone of the arguments indicated the justices are likely to uphold the state laws.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about the pro-LGBT aim of imposing a nationwide rule while states remain divided. With roughly half of states allowing “transgender” participation and half restricting it, he asked whether the court should “constitutionalize a rule for the whole country” amid the ongoing debate.

Kavanaugh also warned that striking down the laws could undermine decades of gains in women’s athletics, calling the rise in female participation “inspiring.”

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney for the “transgender” plaintiff in the Idaho case, on how the law defines basic terms such as “boy,” “girl,” “man,” and “woman.” 

“We’re not disputing that here,” Harnett responded. 

Alito followed up: “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?” 

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that sex-based distinctions in sports serve a unique purpose and cautioned that invalidating state sports laws could weaken women’s opportunities more broadly. He explained that such a ruling could create a wider exception to sex-based laws beyond athletics.

The court’s liberal justices appeared more sympathetic to the challengers. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the personal impact of the laws on male athletes who identify as female, and criticized what she described as the court’s growing willingness to overturn precedent.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that blanket rules unfairly ignore medical differences between athletes, asking whether laws should account for individual circumstances such as puberty blockers or hormone therapy. 

Justice Elena Kagan echoed Jackson’s concern, suggesting that case-by-case evaluations might be preferable to rules that exclude males from women’s events. She also posed a hypothetical question about whether a “transgender” student excluded from girls’ sports could be barred from non-athletic activities like a chess club, where physical differences are not as important.

Each case was brought by a “transgender” athlete backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and allied advocacy groups. The court is expected to issue a decision by June, as CatholicVote previously reported.

Conservative advocates rally outside courthouse 

As the justices heard oral arguments, hundreds of women’s sports advocates and lawmakers rallied outside the courthouse. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Education Secretary Linda McMahon attended the rally, which was streamed live by the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom.

McMahon said in a speech at the event that restoring fairness in women’s sports is a “moral imperative” and sex-segregated intimate spaces must be protected. 

“As we await the Supreme Court’s rulings, the Trump administration remains steadfast in defending fairness, safety, and equal access for female students and athletes across America,” she said, according to an X post sharing her remarks. 

Athlete and women’s sports advocate Riley Gaines, who attended the rally, criticized arguments made by opponents that “hide behind” vague appeals to empathy that, she said, are not truly compassionate.

“It’s the bare minimum that we’re fighting for,” Gaines said. “We’re demanding that the Supreme Court rule in favor of reality, common sense, and truth.”

>> 207 female lawmakers urge Supreme Court to uphold women’s sports protections <<