NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving transgender athletes in women’s and girls sports Thursday and will make decisions on state laws that prevent biological males from competing on girls and women’s sports teams.
The two cases, Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. B.P.J., have been brought by former NCAA women athletes who have witnessed the fallout from biological males in women’s sports.
Former Idaho State University cross-country and track runner Madison Kenyon got involved in Little v. Hecox after having to compete against a trans athlete her freshman year in 2019.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS
“My coach sat us down in the room and told us that we would be competing against a male athlete at a specific meet and just let us know. And I remember sitting there and kind of like, looking around the room being like, ‘Well, what do my teammates think about this? What do we do?’” Kenyon told Fox News Digital.
“So, for us, it was not a matter of whether I’m going to compete or not. I’m going to put everything out there that I have and see what happens. And sure enough, this male athlete beat me, beat all my teammates and that continued to happen the entire season. So, that’s when I said, ‘This isn’t fair.'”
SCOTUS RULES ON STATE BAN ON GENDER TRANSITION ‘TREATMENTS’ FOR MINORS IN LANDMARK CASE
The Little v. Hecox lawsuit was initially filed by Lindsay Hecox, a trans athlete at Boise State University who wanted to join the women’s cross-country team. Hecox was joined by an anonymous cisgender female student, Jane Doe, who was concerned about the potential of being subjected to the sex dispute verification process.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the law from being enforced because it found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the law unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, but now the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to intervene.
Former Stetson University women’s soccer player Lainey Armistead, who is involved in the State of West Virginia v. B.P.J., felt compelled to join a legal battle over the issue after being informed about it and a way to contribute to a lawsuit in the Mountain State.
“I heard about the girls and women whose scholarships and opportunities and places on the podium were being taken from them, and I also heard that West Virginia decided to do something about that. And they created the Save Women’s Sports Law, and I knew that I wanted to defend that, because, not only for myself, but also forward looking for future girls,”
The West Virginia v. B.P.J. lawsuit was brought against the state of West Virginia by a trans athlete, referred to as B.P.J., who was initially granted a preliminary injunction allowing the athlete to participate on the school’s sports teams. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state’s appeal.
Arimstead and Kenyon joined their respective lawsuits at a time when national momentum wasn’t necessarily trending toward their cause as it does in 2025. But now their efforts have resulted in a chance to influence history on the issue with a pending Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the cases could cast a sweeping precedent whether states have the right to ban trans athletes in women’s sports. However, an attorney representing Armistead and Kenyon, John Bursch of Alliance of Defending Freedom, suggested the firm won’t lean on the argument that trans athlete laws should be a states’ rights issue.
He would argue the bigger picture issue.
“I don’t think we need to do that,” Bursch said of making the states’ rights argument. “It’s clearly the right result under Title IX, under the equal protection clause and under common sense, that men and women are different.
So far, 27 states in the U.S. already have 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 a Supreme Court decision could ensure his side of the debate maintains momentum.
“I think that this trend will continue to grow, and assuming the Supreme Court rules in favor of the states here, you’ll see more states adopting these types of protections to keep women safe and level the playing field.”
No hearing dates have been set for the case, but Bursch expects the first hearing at some point in January.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Read the full article here
