Will SCOTUS Keep Trans Kids Out of Sports?

January 19, 2026·1 hr 33 min·5 clips

The federal government signals it will sue states that allow transgender athletes to play sports if the Supreme Court rules in their favor.

This episode of Strict Scrutiny analyzes the Supreme Court oral arguments in two consolidated cases, *Little v. Hecox* and *West Virginia v. BPJ*, which challenge state laws banning transgender girls from participating in school sports. Hosts and legal scholars Kate Shaw, Leah Litman, and Melissa Murray dissect the legal strategies and potential ramifications. They frame the cases as a critical test for transgender rights and sex equality doctrine under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs' attorneys, Kathleen Hartnett and Josh Block, argued these are narrow "as applied" challenges, not an attack on sex-segregated sports generally. A major theme was whether "as applied" Equal Protection challenges even exist, with Justice Kagan noting the doctrine is surprisingly unclear. The hosts highlight the federal government's position, presented by Hash Mapan, which they describe as advocating for the exclusion of transgender athletes. Justice Barrett questioned West Virginia's lawyer about the limits of his Title IX theory, using hypotheticals about sex-segregated math classes. Justice Kagan extended this to a hypothetical about banning girls from chess clubs. A surprising insight was the states' lawyers for Idaho and West Virginia suggesting, under questioning from Justice Kavanaugh, that the Constitution might allow other states to permit transgender athletes. The federal government's lawyer immediately signaled the administration would litigate to force all states to adopt bans. The hosts argue the conservative legal strategy is to fracture social justice coalitions by pitting women's rights against transgender rights. They warn a ruling for the states could dramatically weaken constitutional scrutiny for sex discrimination, moving it toward a "reasonableness" standard. Justice Kagan openly strategized with lawyers to limit the decision's blast radius, revealing the liberal justices expect to lose. The episode connects the case to the Court's recent history, like the *303 Creative* decision, where "as applied" challenges were welcomed for different claims. Neil Gorsuch explored using the Spending Clause to rule for the states, suggesting Title IX lacks a clear statement putting states on notice. The hosts see the case as part of a broader project to unwind modern sex equality constitutionalism. The tone is analytical, urgent, and deeply critical of the Court's conservative majority, blending legal education with sharp political commentary. The hosts employ sarcasm and colloquial language while dissecting complex doctrine. Listeners interested in constitutional law, LGBTQ+ rights, and the Supreme Court's ideological direction will find this episode compelling. Those seeking a neutral, dispassionate legal analysis or who support the state bans may find the hosts' perspective too pointed.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Strict Scrutiny