Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(174,963 posts)
Thu Jul 3, 2025, 02:49 PM Jul 2025

Deadline: Legal Blog--Supreme Court takes up issue of transgender girls and women in sports for next term

The court’s decision to consider the matter sets up the possibility of two big rulings against transgender people two terms in a row.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trans-sports-teams-girls-women-rcna216720

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up the hot-button issue of whether transgender girls and women are allowed to participate in sports on girls’ and women’s teams.

The court’s decision to consider the matter sets up the possibility of two big rulings against transgender people two terms in a row, following last month’s 6-3 ruling in the Skrmetti case, in which the Republican-appointed supermajority upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. It takes four justices to grant review of an appeal.

Like the Skrmetti case, the court’s forthcoming decision in the sports-related appeals has national implications. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports since 2020.

“Many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student athletes at risk and open the door for any school official or adult to question and harass young women,” the ACLU said.....

With the high court’s decision to take the appeal, it’s now one of several on the court’s docket so far next term backed by ADF. The justices add appeals to the docket on a rolling basis and typically hear arguments in two-week sessions from October through April.

Opposing review in a brief last year, ACLU lawyers, who also represented the transgender side in the Skrmetti case, urged the justices to at least wait to decide what to do with this sports case until Skrmetti was decided.

“To the extent that there are unresolved issues in the context of athletics following Skrmetti, there will be plenty of future vehicles for this Court to resolve those issues on a complete record and with further development of the issues in the lower courts,” they wrote to the justices, who nonetheless chose this case as a vehicle.

In the West Virginia case, state officials said the appeals court “took on an exceptionally important issue — and got most every step exceptionally wrong.” They asked the justices to “grant review to ensure that women’s sports are preserved and protected.” Opposing review in a brief last year, ACLU lawyers similarly referenced the then-pending Skrmetti case. And like in the Idaho case, they raised procedural reasons not to take the West Virginia case, but the justices nonetheless took this one up as well.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Deadline: Legal Blog--Supreme Court takes up issue of transgender girls and women in sports for next term (Original Post) LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2025 OP
These cases present a unique juxtaposition of issues. TommyT139 Jul 2025 #1
SCOTUS agrees to hear two cases involving bans on transgender athletes participating in women's sports LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2025 #2

TommyT139

(2,148 posts)
1. These cases present a unique juxtaposition of issues.
Thu Jul 3, 2025, 03:17 PM
Jul 2025

One case centers on a trans girl who, because of puberty blockers, never went through male puberty. Can she be prohibited from joining a girl's team? Relevant to her case, after the Skrmetti decision, she can be barred from accessing these puberty blockers altogether. Right now it depends on state law, but it's clear that RFKJr's FDA will be taking a look at national restrictions.

The other case (as far as I can tell from a first read) centers on a young trans woman who did go through male puberty, but then was on hormones long enough -- under some sports-specific standards -- to try out for the women's team. Another plaintiff in that case is a non trans woman who highlights the invasive nature of the Idaho law: in order keep out trans women, any woman or girl's sex can be challenged, followed by a process to determine whether that athlete is trans.

Let me say that again: the Idaho law means any woman or girl can be subject to a determination of their sex, with the goal of keeping the very rare trans girl out of girls' sports. And indeed, there have been far too many instances of this, where the vast majority of the challenges turn out to be targeting non trans girls.

As a side issue, the Idaho case includes the misuse of scientific research on testosterone, according to the author of the misused research study. While not the focus of the case, the misuse or "cherry picking" of research has played a prominent role in the right-wing attacks on medical care and bodily autonomy. So far, it has been nearly impossible to effectively counter this tactic. Lies get inscribed into law as if they are truth.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Deadline: Legal Blog--Sup...