January 1, Supreme Court Justices Signal Shift on Sports Rules

Wyatt’s Take

• Justices Gorsuch and Barrett question limits on men in women’s sports.
• Barrett’s statements hint at accepting gender claims in court language.
• The future of girls’ sports hangs on Supreme Court decisions.

Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Barrett raised eyebrows during arguments about whether men should compete in women’s sports. Their questions leaned toward recognizing “transgender” identity as something the law protects, which could mean big changes for girls’ athletics.

Gorsuch asked if those claiming a “transgender” status should be seen as a special group, citing past discrimination. This follows his history in the Bostock case, where he wrote the opinion that led to legal protections for “transgender” workers under old civil rights laws.

The Biden administration used Bostock to push their agenda, requiring states to follow new gender rules everywhere federal funding goes. Many see this as harmful to fairness for girls and women.

Idaho’s Alan Hurst told the court that real protected groups have faced discrimination like that based on race or sex, not changing gender identity.

Barrett, in another case, wrote that “transgender” isn’t its own protected class, since the group is big, varied, and not tied to a clear, unchangeable trait from birth.

“We have held that the mentally disabled, the elderly, and the poor are not suspect classes,” she wrote.

“The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so. To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of ‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’ as race or sex. In particular, it is not defined by a trait that is ‘definitively ascertainable at the moment of birth.’ The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages — some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals ‘detransition’ later in life — in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex. Accordingly, transgender status does not turn on an ‘immutable . . . characteristi[c].’”

“Nor is the transgender population a ‘discrete group,’ as our cases require. Instead, like classes we have declined to recognize as suspect, the category of transgender individuals is ‘large, diverse, and amorphous.’”

Despite that, Barrett often used activist language in Tuesday’s arguments, calling biological boys “trans girls.” She also questioned if boys have any athletic edge at a young age, which was dismissed by Idaho’s legal team who pointed to medical evidence that boys have clear advantages, even before puberty.

This issue could split the Supreme Court, especially since Gorsuch wrote the opinion that started legal protections for “transgender” claims, and Chief Justice Roberts supported him. The final decision could impact the future of women’s sports across America.

Don’t let these issues slip by unnoticed. Make sure your voice and values are heard in every debate threatening the truth about biology and fairness in sports.

Wyatt Matters

Middle America values fairness and common sense, especially when it comes to protecting girls’ sports and opportunities. We’re watching closely to see if justice still holds the line for our daughters’ future.

Read more at The Federalist