Will the Supreme Court uphold bans on trans athletes? Live updates.

WASHINGTON − After years of national debate over transgender girls and women on female sports teams, the Supreme Court is stepping in.

The court is debating on Jan. 13 whether restrictions passed by more than half the states violate either the Constitution or a federal civil rights law barring sex discrimination in school programs.

The transgender students from Idaho and West Virginia who are challenging their states’ bans say the laws don’t take into account individual circumstances, including whether someone who takes puberty-blockers or cross-gender hormones may no longer be bigger, faster or stronger than a typical female.

The states argue that athletic advantages remain even after hormonal treatments and the bans are necessary to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

Follow along for live coverage of the debate.

Conservative Justice Barrett asks about young transgender children

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, posed a hypothetical to Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, that seemed aimed at considering if there are situations in which science does and doesn’t support banning transgender girls and women from women’s sports.

Barrett asked how Hurst’s argument would do if it was applied to a hypothetical ban on transgender six-year-old girls competing on a girl’s team. She said Hurst’s argument is based on testosterone levels and differences in athletic capability, which made her wonder how it would apply in an age group that’s prepubescent. 

Hurst responded that the court record in the Idaho case supports the idea that even at such a young age, males have about a 5% athletic advantage over girls in most situations.

‘Now, if this is not a level of competition where anybody cares about that, the simple solution is the solution you see in most places, which is you have co-ed sports,’ Hurst said. ‘Idaho’s law does nothing to interfere with that.’

– Aysha Bagchi

Idaho argues states shouldn’t be forced to tailor laws for individuals

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst told Justice Elena Kagan it would be unworkable for courts to order exceptions to laws based on a class of litigants any time judges thought they didn’t make sense.

Hurst argued litigants could keep moving the goal lines. For example, he said, if a law was based on taking testosterone, a transgender athlete could argue they are taking so little it provides no advantage.

“It’s going to be enormously burdensome and the state can never win,” Hurst said. “You’d have to make as many exceptions as courts thought you needed to make.”

– Bart Jansen

Kavanaugh probes if the constitution requires the state bans

The challenges before the court are about whether states can, under the law, ban transgender girls and women from participating in female athletics.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the court’s conservatives, raised the question of whether the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection requires states to draw that line.

Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, said he’s not persuaded by a constitutional theory that would let Idaho impose its policy on other states.

Twenty-seven states bar transgender girls and women from joining female sports teams. Other states either prohibit such bans or have not taken a position.

– Maureen Groppe

Sotomayor asks why the court should rule on Idaho ban at all

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the court consider dismissing the Idaho case as ‘moot’ – a legal term that means there is no longer a live issue to rule on. 

The plaintiff in the Idaho case, Lindsay Hecox, originally sued because Idaho’s ban blocked her from trying out for the Boise State Universitytrack and cross-country teams. But she has stopped playing women’s sports, and now says that means she no longer has a personal stake in the case. As a result, she argues, her case is moot.

Sotomayor said it’s clear Hecox wasn’t trying to prevent the court from ruling on the legality of state bans on transgender women competing in women’s sports, because the justices are also reviewing a similar ban in West Virginia.

‘So we don’t have a subterfuge in attempting to stop the court from reaching an important legal question,’ Sotomayor said.

Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, responded that a lower court in the case had concluded Hecox’s plans had changed before and could change again, so she shouldn’t be able to get the case dropped that way.

– Aysha Bagchi

Do transgender people merit extra protection?

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the pivotal votes in the case, directed his first question to whether there’s been a history of discrimination against transgender people. That’s relevant to whether transgender status – similar to sex and race – triggers a higher level of scrutiny for laws affecting them.

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, said there’s no history of laws targeted transgender people the way there is for laws targeted African Americans or women.

“These things don’t compare,” he said.

Hurst also brought up comments Justice Amy Coney Barrett made in last year’s ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. Barrett argued that transgender status does not appear to merit heightened protection.

– Maureen Groppe

Idaho lawyer says case is about whether law is applied equally

Justice Elena Kagan asked how the court should review the case. She said one approach would resolve the dispute about whether a transgender athlete held an advantage. Another approach would resolve whether everyone is treated the same under the law.

“I don’t really know what you’re suggesting,” Kagan said. “Which way should we think about this case?

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst said the court should resolve whether the classification of athletes is justified generally, not necessarily in each particular case.

“We think that’s the right approach: is the classification justified, not is it justified in each individual instance,” Hurst said.

– Bart Jansen

Idaho says student shouldn’t get to drop her challenge

Lindsay Hecox, the senior at Boise State University who is challenging Idaho’s law, in September asked the court to let her dismiss her case, writing that she was no longer playing sports and is afraid she will be harassed and have trouble graduating if the high-profile case continues. The court said it would wait until after oral arguments to decide.

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, argued on Jan. 13 that it was too late for Hecox to drop out.

Hecoz initially said she intended to play throughout college, he told the court.

– Maureen Groppe

Liberal Justice Sotomayor suggests tougher test for trans athlete ban

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, came out scrutinizing an argument from Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, who is defending the state’s ban on transgender women participating in women’s sports. Hurst said the justices should apply a low level of scrutiny – known as ‘rational basis review’ – to analyzing whether the Idaho ban is constitutional.

‘That makes no sense to me,’ Sotomayor responded. She said Idaho’s ban classified athletes based on sex, and the Supreme Court has historically applied a higher level of scrutiny – known as ‘intermediate scrutiny’ – to that kind of law.

– Aysha Bagchi

Idaho makes plea for fairness

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, began his case with an appeal for fairness.

Someone’s sex correlates with “countless athletic advantages,” including muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity, he said.

“If women don’t have their own competitions, they won’t be able to compete,” he said.

Hurst said the student challenging the law – Lindsay Hecox — is seeking “special treatment for males who allegedly lack an unfair advantage.” (Hecox, a senior at Boise State University, says her testosterone levels are typical of non-transgender women and her muscle mass and size have decreased because of her hormone treatments.)

Idaho’s law easily applies to 99% of males, he said, and “a perfect fit is not required.”

– Maureen Groppe

Debate begins with challenge to Idaho law

The debate, which could last several hours, has begun.

First up is the case from Idaho, which was the first state to pass a ban.

Defending the law is Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst.

His side goes first because Idaho is appealing the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that Idaho’s law likely violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, which requires the government to have valid reasons for treating people differently.

Idaho’s law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a senior at Boise State University, who says her testosterone levels are typical of non-transgender women and her muscle mass and size have decreased because of her hormone treatments.

– Maureen Groppe

Demonstrators show support for sports ban

Dozens of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court on Jan. 13 to show their support for state bans barring transgender women and girls from participating in female sports teams. Many in the crowd held up signs that said “save women’s sports,” “our sports our spaces” and “gender ideology harms kids,” as former Georgia state Rep. Alveda King led the crowd in singing “This Little Light of Mine.”

“The implications are clear, the court’s ruling will provide national guidance on Title IX that will resolve or reshape dozens of lawsuits around the country involving women and girls in athletics,” Stacey Schieffelin, the Women’s Initiative Chair at America First Policy Initiative, told the crowd. “This is a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve fairness, safety and the truth in women’s sports.”

Alexa Anderson, a 19-year-old track and field athlete, said she traveled all the way from Oregon to be in Washington, DC, for oral arguments. Anderson said the issue before the court has affected her personally: She and another athlete stepped off the podium in protest after competing against a transgender athlete in a high jump event during her senior year of high school and filed an ongoing Title IX lawsuit against state officials.

“I want other girls, all future generations, to have that same ability and to be able to feel that safety, that protection, and just the happiness overall that I felt growing up in the world of sports,” she said. “And not to worry about stepping on the field and thinking that there’s a biological man and that their risk of injury might be higher, and that all their hard work didn’t matter because they’re just going to be outperformed because of biology.”

− N’dea Yancey-Bragg

An ‘uphill fight’

Lawyers for the transgender students challenging Idaho’s and West Virginia’s bans aren’t boasting about their chances.

“We know we have an uphill fight,” Josh Block, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, told reporters last week.

Block pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. And since then, the court has allowed two of President Trump’s policies targeting transgender people to go into effect as they’re being challenged: Trump’s ban on transgender military troops and his requirement that passports identify someone by their biological sex at birth.

“It’s no secret that the past two years have been a really tough time to be transgender in this country,” Block said.

But he also noted that the court’s 2025 decision for Tennessee in U.S. v. Skrmetti avoided larger issues that would have extended its reach beyond health care.

“The court really went out of its way in Skrmetti to write a narrow decision instead of a broad one,” he said. “So we’re hopeful that the court will continue to be very sensitive to these issues.”

– Maureen Groppe

Protesters who’ve competed against trans athletes speak out

Several protesters , including Riley Gaines and others who have competed against transgender girls in the past, spoke out in support of the bans ahead of oral arguments, saying they believe that competing against transgender girls was unsafe, unfair and cost them opportunities in some cases.

“We want to win, we work to win, and we deserve a fair chance at victory,” Madison Kenyon, who competed on Idaho State University’s track and cross-country teams, said at a news conference on Jan. 12. ‘I’ll happily compete against challenging odds, but nobody should lose before the start of the race.’

Mary Marshall, who also competed on the track and cross-country teams at Idaho State University, shared with reporters the effort that goes into athletic training. She said losing to a transgender competitor left her wondering “whether my hard work is even worth that effort.’

Jennifer Sey, former All-Around Gymnastics National Champion and CEO of clothing brand XX-XY, said that even if the challenges to Idaho and West Virginia’s laws are defeated at the Supreme Court, their work won’t be done. She noted that 23 states and Washington, D.C. still wouldn’t have laws explicitly preventing transgender girls from participating in female sports.

“We need to change the cultural conversation,” she said.

– N’dea Yancey-Bragg

More at stake than trans participation in sports

If the Supreme Court decides that West Virginia’s ban doesn’t violate the Title IX civil rights statute barring sex discrimination in school programs, that ruling could affect more than sports.

Josh Block, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the West Virginia student challenging the ban, said sports is just a “tiny part” of Title IX. If the court says that law doesn’t protect transgender students from discrimination, he said, then transgender students could be excluded from using restrooms that match their gender identity and a principal could expel a student for being trans.

“Title IX protects against sex discrimination in all parts of education,” he told reporters last week. “And whatever someone thinks about whether it’s okay to exclude transgender people from sports, I would hope that that ruling isn’t then used to exclude them from all other parts of school life, which would completely be on the table if West Virginia’s arguments prevail in their widest form.”

West Virginia AG says he expects a landslide victory

One day before oral arguments began, West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey expressed confidence that the states fighting challenges to laws that prevent transgender girls from competing on female sports teams would prevail. Losing the case would have “monumental” consequences, he said at a news conference Jan. 12 alongside several other Republican attorneys general and current and former female athletes.

“We all fully expect that this is going to be a 9-0 decision,” McCuskey said. “We are right on the facts, we’re right on the Constitution, we are right in public opinion, but importantly, we’re right on common sense.”

McCuskey’s Idahoan counterpart, Attorney General Raúl Labrador, however, said he was not as optimistic. Labrador said he expected many of the arguments would revolve around “legal technicalities” rather than the “common sense issues” at the heart of the case.

“And I think some of the justices of the court are going to have some issues with that,” Labrador said.

– N’dea Yancey-Bragg

Will Justice Gorsuch speak?

During last year’s oral arguments in a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, all eyes were on Justice Neil Gorsuch. That’s because the conservative justice, a Trump appointee, surprised many people in 2020 by authoring a 6-3 ruling that gay and transgender people are protected by a law barring sex discrimination in the workplace.

Last year, however, Gorsuch voted with the 6-3 majority to uphold Tennessee’s ban after not asking any questions during the oral arguments.

A big question going into today’s arguments is whether Gorsuch will stay mum or if he’ll offer any clues about whether the reasoning of the 2020 decision about workplace discrimination helps the transgender students’ challenge.

– Maureen Groppe

Is the Trump administration involved in the case?

Although the challenges are based on state laws, the Justice Department has also gotten involved. At the department’s request, Justice Department attorney Hashim M. Mooppan will get time during oral arguments to support the state bans.

President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue, has moved to cut off federal funding to schools that allow transgender females to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.

“The whole thing is ridiculous … and it’s so demeaning to women,” Trump said when he mocked transgender athletes during a recent speech to House Republicans.

– Maureen Groppe