News Aggregation

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Over more than three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, justices grappled with questions about sex and gender as the Supreme Court heard cases on whether bans in Idaho and West Virginia are violating transgender athletes’ rights to compete in organized sports. Attorneys for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union argued the states violated the constitutional rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 25, when they barred them from competing. Attorneys for Idaho and West Virginia claimed it was impossible for states to sort through which trans people should and should not qualify for athletics and therefore that the states needed a blanket ban against all transgender women. The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J could have big implications for transgender athletes and trans people more broadly — but rulings could just as likely be limited to the two athletes who defy conservative stereotypes about transgender athletes. Pepper-Jackson, a high school athlete, transitioned before ever undergoing male puberty. Hecox, a runner at Boise State University, didn’t qualify for her school’s track team but played club sports until a 2020 law barred her from competing.  Alan Hurst, solicitor general for the state of Idaho, tried to argue that transgender girls did not face the same kind of discrimination as other protected groups of people and that barring them all from athletics was necessary to protect cisgender girls. “If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country’s history, these things don’t compare,” Hurst said.  West Virginia’s solicitor general, Michael Williams, tried to make the case that the law was not discriminatory because transgender girls could still participate on boys’ sports teams.  Lawyers for the states, as well as Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, asserted that the girls were actually boys taking performance-enhancing drugs. They argued that the case was one of sex classification, not gender identity, and that based on sex, the trans girls should be excluded from girls’ sports.  But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a part of the court’s liberal minority, pushed back on that classification, saying that the ban meant the law didn’t apply equally to everyone.  “The law actually operates differently, I think, for cisgender women and transgender women, that is with respect to their desire to play on a team that matches their gender identity. Cisgender women can do it. Transgender women cannot,” she said. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if allowing transgender girls to play would open the gate for cisgender boys who got cut from boys’ teams to join girls’ teams. No, said the ACLU’s Joshua Block. “We don’t think the boys’ team is for better athletes, and you have a backup team for athletes that aren’t as good,” he said “I think the purpose of the teams is to control for the variable of sex-based advantages, so that talented women athletes have all the same opportunities as talented male athletes.” Kathleen Hartnett, representing Hecox, urged the court to rule in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson while science on transgender athletics develops.  “I don’t think this court needs to set rules forever on this area,” Hartnett said. “I think the most important thing would be to allow a record to develop, even in areas of controversy.” The court will decide if the states violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Constitution in barring the girls from participating. Research on transgender athletes remains limited, but overall it has not found that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports after medical transition. It’s not known how many trans athletes are competing at the grade-school level in sports, but advocates insist the number represents a small fraction of overall competitors. In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker said that of 500,000 college athletes, openly trans people account fewer than 10 total.  A decision is expected later this year.

Craig Stingley had no legal training, no big-name lawyer or civil rights advocate by his side. Yet for 13 years, he refused to accept that the judicial system would hold no one responsible for the killing of his 16-year-old son, Corey. The quest for justice dominated his life.  He gathered police reports, witness statements and other evidence in the Dec. 14, 2012, fatal incident inside a Milwaukee-area convenience store. The youth had tried to shoplift $12 worth of flavored malt beverages at the shop before abandoning the items and turning to leave. That’s when three men wrestled him to the ground to hold him for the police.  The medical examiner determined that he died of a brain injury from asphyxiation after a “violent struggle with multiple individuals.” The manner of death: homicide.  When prosecutors chose not to charge anyone, Stingley waged a legal campaign of his own that forced the case to be reexamined. A 2023 ProPublica investigation pieced together a detailed timeline of what happened inside the store, recounted what witnesses saw and examined the backgrounds of the three customers involved in the altercation. Finally, this week, in an extraordinary turn of events, Stingley will see a measure of accountability. On Monday, a criminal complaint filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court charged the surviving patrons — Robert W. Beringer and Jesse R. Cole — with felony murder. The defendants are set to appear in court on Thursday.  Beringer’s attorney, Tony Cotton, described the broad outlines of a deferred prosecution agreement that can lead to the charges being dismissed after the two men plead guilty or no contest. The men may be required by the court to make a contribution to a charity in honor of Corey Stingley and to perform community service, avoiding prison time, according to Cotton and Craig Stingley. In Wisconsin, felony murder is a special category for incidents in which the commission of a serious crime — in this case, false imprisonment — causes the death of another person. The prosecutor’s office in Dane County, which is handling the matter, declined to comment. Cole’s attorney said his client had no comment. Previously, the three men have argued that their actions were justified, citing self-defense and their need to respond to an emergency.  For Stingley, a key part of the accountability process already has taken place. Last year, as part of a restorative justice program and under the supervision of a retired judge, Stingley and the two men interacted face to face in separate meetings. There, inside an office on a Milwaukee college campus, they confronted the traumatic events that led to Corey Stingley’s death and the still-roiling feelings of resentment, sorrow and pain.  Craig Stingley said he felt that, after years of downplaying their role, the men showed regret and a deeper understanding of what had happened. For instance, Stingley said, he and Cole aired out their different perspectives on what occurred and even reviewed store surveillance video together.  “I have never been able to breathe as clearly and as deeply and feel as free as I have after that meeting was over,” Stingley said.  Restorative justice programs bring together survivors and offenders — via meetings or letters or through community panels — to try to deepen understanding, promote healing and discuss how best to make amends for a wide range of harms. The approach has been used by schools and juvenile and criminal justice systems, as well as nations grappling with large-scale atrocities. Situations where restorative justice and deferred prosecution are employed for such serious charges are rare, Cotton said. But, he said, the whole case is rare — from the prosecution declining to issue charges initially to holding it open for multiple reviews over a decade.  “Our hearts go out to the Stingley family, and we believe that the restorative justice process has allowed all sides to express their feelings openly,” Cotton said. “We are glad that a fair and just outcome has been achieved.” A medical examiner determined that Corey Stingley died of a brain injury from asphyxiation after an altercation with three men at a convenience store in 2012. Prosecutors assigned to the case declined to press charges. Taylor Glascock for ProPublica The Legal Quest Milwaukee’s district attorney at the time of Corey Stingley’s death, John Chisholm, announced there would be no charges 13 months later, in January 2014. Cole, Beringer and a third man, Maurio Laumann, now deceased, were not culpable because they did not intend to injure or kill the teen and weren’t trained in proper restraint techniques, Chisholm determined.  Craig Stingley, who is Black, and others in the community protested the decision, claiming the three men — all white — were not good Samaritans but had acted violently to kill a Black youth with impunity. “When a person loses his life at the hands of others, it would seem that a ‘chargeable’ offense has occurred,” the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP said in a statement at the time. Looking for a way to reopen the case, Stingley reexamined the evidence, including security video. In a painful exercise, he watched the takedown of his son, by his estimation hundreds of times, analyzing who did what, frame by frame. What he saw only reinforced his view that his son’s death was unnecessary and his right to due process denied. Corey Stingley and his father lived only blocks from VJ’s Food Mart, in West Allis, Wisconsin. That December day, Stingley made his way to the back of the store and stuck six bottles of Smirnoff Ice into his backpack. At the front counter, the teenager provided his debit card to pay for an energy drink, but the clerk demanded the stolen items. Stingley surrendered the backpack, reached toward the cash register to recover his debit card, then turned to exit. Cole told police he extended his hand to stop Stingley and claimed that the teen punched him in the face, though it is not evident on the video. The three men