NEWYou can now listen to Pakinomist articles!
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving transient athletes in women and girls, Sports Thursday and will make decisions on state legislation that prevent biological men from competing for girls and women’s sports teams.
The two cases, Little v. Hecox and the State of West Virginia against BPJ, have been brought by former NCAA -Kvant athletes who have witnessed the fall of biological men in women’s sports.
Former Idaho State University cross -country and runner Madison Kenyon got involved in Little v. Hecox after having to compete against a trans athlete its first year year in 2019.
CLICK HERE for more sports cover on Foxnews
“My coach sat down in the room and told us we would compete against a male athlete at a specific meeting and just tell us. And I remember sitting there and kind of like when we looked around the room that was like, ‘Well, what do my teammates think about this? What do we do?'” Kenyon told Pakinomist Digital.
“So for us it wasn’t a question of whether to compete or not. I want to put everything out there as I have and see what’s happening. And sure enough, this male athlete beat me, beat all my teammates and it went on to happen all season. So it was when I said,” This is not fair. ”
Scotus Rules on State Prohibition on Gender Transition Treatments’ For Minors in Landmark Case
The little v. Hecox court case was originally filed by Lindsay Hecox, a trans athlete at Boise State University who wanted to join the Women’s Cross-Land Team. Hecox, along with an anonymous cisgender, became female student, Jane Doe, who was concerned about the potential of being exposed to the sex vigilance process.
The US District Law of the District of Idaho awarded a preliminary injunction that blocked the law from being enforced because it found that the applicants were likely to succeed in proving the law constitutionally. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals maintained the order, but now the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to intervene.
Former Stetson University Women’s Footballer Lainy Armistead, who is involved in the state of West Virginia against BPJ, felt compelled to participate in a legal battle for the question after being informed about it and a way to contribute to a lawsuit in Mountain State.
“I heard about those girls and women whose scholarships and opportunities and places on the podium were taken from them, and I also heard that West Virginia decided to do something about it. And they created Save Women’s Sports Law, and I knew I would defend it because, not only for myself, but also forward after future girls,”
West Virginia against the BPJ Case was brought against the state of West Virginia by a trans athlete, referred to as BPJ, which was originally awarded a preliminary order that enabled the athlete to participate in the school’s sports team. The fourth Court Court of Court decided that the law violated the title IX and the straight protection clause. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state’s appeal.
Arimstead and Kenyon joined their respective litigation at a time when national momentum was not necessarily in the tendency of their case, as it does in 2025. But now their efforts have resulted in a chance to influence the story of the question with a pending Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the cases could give a sweeping precedent whether states have the right to ban trans athletes in women’s sports. However, a lawyer representing Armistead and Kenyon, John Bursch of the Alliance of Defenending Freedom, suggested that the company will not lean on the argument that Trans Athlete -Love should be a states’ rights of rights.
He will argue for the bigger image problem.
“I don’t think we have to do it,” Bursch said of putting the state’s rights argument. “It is clearly the right result under section IX, under the equality provision and under common sense that men and women are different.
So far, 27 states in the United States have already laws in place to keep trans athletes out of girls sports, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February to apply the same mandate nationally. Bursch believes that a Supreme Court decision can ensure that his side of the debate maintains speed.
“I think this trend will continue to grow and if you assume that the Supreme Court’s rules in favor of the states here, you will see more states adopt these types of protection to keep women in safety and smooth the rules of the game.”
No consultation dates have been set for the case, but Bursch expects the first hearing at some point in January.
