NEWYou can now listen to Pakinomist articles!
The attorney general, who is leading the legal defense for “Save Women’s Sports” in the ongoing Supreme Court battle over trans athletes, is optimistic about the upcoming decision.
Oral arguments on Tuesday led most experts to believe that a majority of the justices appear poised to rule in favor of Idaho and West Virginia’s right to uphold laws to keep men out of women’s sports.
Idaho AG Raul Labrador and West Virginia AG John McCuskey also expect a win, albeit on different terms. McCuskey boldly stated that he expects the court to issue a unanimous 9-0 decision in his state’s favor.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON Pakinomist
Female athletes who are parties to the case speak outside the U.S. Supreme Court after justices heard arguments in challenges to the state’s ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports on January 13, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Oliver Contreras/AFP)
“We all fully expect this to be a 9-0 decision. We’re right on the facts. We’re right on the Constitution. We’re right on public opinion, but most importantly, we’re right on common sense. And these are the kinds of issues that even conservatives and liberals can agree on,” McCuskey said at a news conference Monday.
“I’m not going into any arguments assuming I’m going to lose anybody. And so it’s our mission and our goal to make sure this case is decided in our favor. And we believe very, very strongly in our mission and our goal to make sure this case is decided in our favor. So we’re looking for a 9-0 decision and we feel really good about that.”
However, Labrador is not so optimistic, suggesting that some of the liberal justices will rule against his side, while still predicting a win.
“We feel very optimistic about the decision. Sometimes I even felt like we could get a 9-0 decision, and I don’t think that’s going to happen,” Labrador told Pakinomist Digital after the hearing Tuesday. “But I just hope the judges look at the common sense issues that were brought to the court today and rule in our favor.”
INSIDE SCOTUS HEARING TO BE A TURNING POINT IN THE CULTURE WAR OVER TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS
Justices Kentaji Brown-Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor fielded questions and statements during the hearing that could indicate they will rule in favor of the trans athlete plaintiffs.
During the hearing’s opening arguments, Brown-Jackson pressed Idaho Attorney General Alan Hurst on the state’s law protecting girls and women’s sports.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say this law doesn’t classify on the basis of transgender status,” Jackson told Hurst. “The law is expressly intended to ensure that transgender women cannot play on women’s sports teams. So why is it not a classification based on transgender status?”
Judge Clarence Thomas was seen sitting in his seat with his hand covering his face during this question by Brown-Jackson, who was witnessed by Pakinomist Digital in the courtroom. There were other moments during the hearing when Thomas was seen in the same pose.
Hurst responded to Jackson, arguing that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act relied on a student athlete’s gender, not transgender status.
Jackson continued to press Hurst, asking, “But it treats transgender women differently than cis women, right?”
In a separate case, Jackson asked West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams similar questions about his state’s Save Women’s Sports Act.
“You have the overarching classification — everybody has to play on the team that’s the same as their gender at birth — but then you have a gender identity definition that works within that, which means a distinction, which means that for cisgender girls, they can play according to their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t,” Jackson said.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor cited the estimated 2.8 million people in the United States who identify as transgender, saying their rights should be respected even though they represent a small percentage of the population.
“What percentage is enough?” Sotomayor asked. “There are 2.8 million transgender people in the United States. That’s an awful lot… What makes an underclass meaningful to you? Is it one percent? Five percent? Thirty percent? Fifteen percent?
“The numbers don’t talk about people.”
‘SAVE WOMEN’S SPORTS’ ACTIVITIES RESPOND TO HIGH COURT TRANS ATHLETE HEARING
Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson (Getty Images)
Labrador told Pakinomist Digital after the hearing that he was surprised by the liberal justices “struggling” with certain issues.
“I was actually surprised at how the judges, who I assume won’t be so kind to our side, really struggled with the issues that we’re going to try, and they tried to find a way to articulate the other side’s position, and even they had a hard time articulating the other side’s position.”
If recent decisions related to trans rights are any indication, a 9-0 decision would be a tough sell, but a favorable rule for West Virginia and Idaho remains likely.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on June 18, 2025, upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming medical treatments for minors. All justices voted down party lines, with the six conservative justices voting to uphold the ban and the three liberal justices voting against it.
But in an August 2024 decision on whether former President Joe Biden’s administration should grant an emergency request to enforce parts of a new rule that includes anti-discrimination protections for transgender students under Title IX, the court voted only 5-4 to deny the request.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, agreeing with the three liberal justices and the Biden administration that the lower court’s rulings were “prejudicial.”
The request would have allowed biological men in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and dormitories in 10 states where there are state and local regulations to prevent it.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE Pakinomist APP
A decision in this case is expected by June at the latest.
