Takeaways from transgender athlete cases at Supreme Court - ESPN

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in two cases that grappled with questions about transgender athletes: Little v. Hecox out of Idaho, and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Both cases centered on laws barring transgender girls and women from girls' and women's sports.

The arguments strayed from the points typically debated about transgender athletes: the importance of sports, their place in society, and the existing science and recent policy history. Instead, the lawyers and justices spent their time on complex legal arguments about the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX.

«Arguing the law and arguing sports are two different things, and I think they could have used a little more sports,» Barbara Ehardt, an Idaho state representative and author of HB 500, told ESPN after the proceedings. «There were a couple of key points made, including when Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh said it's a 'zero-sum game.' It's important to recognize that allowing a biological male takes away the opportunity of a gal and it infringes on the opportunities of everybody they play.»

Arguments also focused on the scope of any opinion the Supreme Court could reach. Kavanaugh brought up multiple times that the states are divided on this issue, pointing to the fact that Idaho and West Virginia are among 27 states that have passed legislation or have policies barring transgender girls and women from participating in the women's category and that 23 states have not passed that type of legislation. He asked how a broad ruling could affect those states. The petitioners in these cases believe a broad ruling is appropriate.

«This is a problem that needs a national solution because it can't be that boys should be allowed to be female athletes