When the Supreme Court handed down its decision this morning that states may bar transgender girls from girls’ and women’s sports teams, the headline wrote itself: a 6–3 majority upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho restricting female athletics to biological females. What the headline obscures is how the majority got there, and the route it chose says more about the Court’s priorities than about the Constitution it claims to be applying. West Virginia v. B.P.J. is not a careful resolution of a hard question. It is a decision to make sure the question never gets fully litigated at all.
That distinction matters because of where the case stood. The Fourth Circuit had not ruled against West Virginia on the equal protection claim. It had sent the case back to the district court for factfinding, recognizing that a genuine and unresolved dispute sat at the center of B.P.J.’s argument. B.P.J. is a teenager who was placed on puberty-delaying treatment before she ever experienced an endogenous male puberty and who later began estrogen therapy. Her contention was specific and testable: that a transgender girl in her situation does not retain the physical advantages the state’s law was written to neutralize, and that her exclusion therefore does nothing to advance the very interests West Virginia invokes. Both sides put forward expert testimony on exactly that point. No court had yet weighed it.
A Court genuinely committed to judicial modesty would have let that record develop. Instead, the majority decided the constitutional question itself, on a record it admitted was incomplete, and announced that the missing facts could not matter no matter how they came out. As Justice Sotomayor put it in dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, the factual dispute is “potentially outcome determinative,” yet the majority resolved the case “without knowing all the facts even though the validity of the means-ends fit depends on them.” When the Court reaches past an unfinished record to deliver a sweeping holding, the more plausible explanation is not legal necessity but a desire to settle a contested social issue on favorable terms.
The clearest sign that the reasoning is results-driven lies in the standard the majority applied. Sex-based classifications are supposed to receive heightened scrutiny, a demanding inquiry that requires the state to offer an “exceedingly persuasive justification” and to show a close fit between its classification and its goals. That framework comes from the Court’s own sex-discrimination cases, principally United States v. Virginia, the 1996 decision striking down the Virginia Military Institute’s men-only admissions policy. The dissent traces, in detail, how the majority quietly swapped that framework out. To excuse the law’s overbreadth, the majority leaned on Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia and Skrmetti, both of which applied the far more forgiving rational-basis test, and then borrowed fit language from First Amendment cases about commercial speech and noise ordinances. The effect is to grade a sex classification on a curve designed for laws that barely have to justify themselves at all.
Once the standard is softened, the majority’s central move becomes possible: the claim that a state need not account for individuals or subclasses for whom its justification does not hold. But the Court’s precedents say the opposite, and the dissent walks through them. In Caban v. Mohammed, the Court refused to let a state apply a sex-based rule to a father whose circumstances did not fit the rule’s premise. In Virginia, the Court rejected the idea that a classification can stand merely because it holds true for most women, insisting that a remedy be crafted even for the minority of women who could meet the institute’s standards. In Trimble v. Gordon, the Court found a violation where a state “unnecessarily” denied exceptions to a category that could have been accommodated without undermining the state’s interest. B.P.J.’s argument fits squarely within this line: she identifies a discrete, definable subclass and asks whether excluding it actually serves the state’s goals. The majority’s answer is that this kind of inquiry is simply too inconvenient to require. That is a policy judgment about administrability dressed up as a constitutional rule.
What makes the political character of the opinion hard to miss is that the arguments the majority now embraces are the same ones the Court rejected a generation ago, in dissent. Justice Sotomayor points this out with some precision. The contention that a plaintiff must identify a sufficiently large disadvantaged subclass before a court will act was made by Justice Stevens, dissenting in Caban, and it lost. The contention that a sex classification is valid unless it fails “in every instance” was made by Justice Scalia, dissenting in Virginia, and it lost too. Today those positions command a majority, “without even providing attribution,” as the dissent notes, to the justices who first advanced them. When previously defeated arguments prevail not because the law changed but because the Court’s membership did, the development is better understood as a shift in power than as a refinement of doctrine.
The majority’s most serious defense deserves a direct answer, because it is the one that gives the opinion whatever surface plausibility it has. Forcing courts to assess each athlete’s body individually, the majority warns, would be an almost impossible task, producing endless and bitter line-drawing that legislatures are better suited to handle. There is something to the worry, and it is worth taking seriously rather than waving away. But it answers a question B.P.J. never asked. She did not request a hearing on her individual height, muscle mass, or lung capacity. She identified a discrete and administrable category, defined by two objective facts a school can verify without weighing anyone’s physique: whether a student has undergone an endogenous male puberty, and whether she is receiving gender-affirming treatment. Drawing lines around categories like that is the ordinary work of equal protection law, not some novel imposition on the judiciary. More tellingly, West Virginia itself ran a case-by-case eligibility system from 2016 until the ban took effect in 2021, under which an opposing school could contest a transgender student’s participation and a state commission would weigh the athlete’s size, strength, speed, and sport. The record shows no flood of disputes and no documented instance of unfair or unsafe competition during those years. A state cannot credibly claim that individualized assessment is unworkable when it operated exactly such a system, without incident, until it chose to stop. The administrability argument, in other words, is not a reason the Constitution permits the ban. It is a reason the legislature preferred one, and the majority adopted the preference as if it were a legal command.
The same problem undoes the majority’s reliance on last term’s Skrmetti decision to characterize these laws as classifying on biological sex rather than transgender status. Grant the point entirely. A law that sorts athletes by sex assigned at birth is a sex classification, and a sex classification is the very thing that triggers heightened scrutiny in the first place. Skrmetti does not lower the bar the state must clear; it identifies which bar applies. Having invoked the case to establish that the classification is one of sex, the majority then proceeded to review it with a deference reserved for classifications that are not. The citation does not rescue the result. It sets up the demanding inquiry the majority spent the rest of the opinion avoiding.
The majority’s treatment of the underlying science compounds the problem. Having declined to let the trial court evaluate the competing expert evidence, the majority nonetheless reassured itself that the science “is not settled” in B.P.J.’s favor, and it cited for that proposition a study published only after oral argument and never entered into the record. It pointed approvingly to the NCAA and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee adopting policies aligned with the bans, without acknowledging that both organizations changed course only after a federal executive order threatened to withhold funding from programs that allowed transgender girls to compete. The dissent further notes that Idaho’s own legislative findings rested in part on a study whose author asked the governor to veto the law because her work had been misrepresented, and on another study that did not involve transgender athletes at all. These are precisely the kinds of factual matters a trial court exists to sort through. Invoking scientific uncertainty as a reason to defer to legislatures, while selectively crediting extra-record material that favors one side, is not deference. It is decision-making with a thumb on the scale.
Two further features confirm that the Court was reaching for an outcome rather than confining itself to the dispute in front of it. The majority resolved Lindsay Hecox’s companion case even though Hecox had sworn she would never again play a sport covered by Idaho’s law, a posture that ordinarily renders a case moot and that the Court has treated as moot in comparable circumstances. Deciding it anyway, when B.P.J.’s case already presented the identical questions, served no purpose the dissent could identify other than prolonging the scrutiny Hecox had tried to escape. And in the Title IX portion of the opinion, the majority declared that the word “sex” in the statute “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” a pronouncement broader than the case required. Justice Jackson, writing separately, pointed out that B.P.J. had conceded the point for purposes of this litigation, so the Court could have ruled on that narrow ground while leaving the larger interpretive question open. Choosing instead to foreclose it, in a passage unnecessary to the judgment, fits a pattern of saying more than the controversy demanded.
None of this means West Virginia would necessarily have lost on a full record. The dissent is careful to disclaim any prediction; the state might well have carried its burden once the facts were developed. The point is narrower and, in some ways, more troubling. A court is supposed to let a case ripen, apply the standard its own precedents prescribe, and decide no more than is necessary. On each of those measures the majority did the reverse. It cut off factfinding, relaxed the level of scrutiny, revived arguments the Court had previously turned away, and extended its holding past the questions actually presented. A ruling assembled that way may announce a constitutional rule, but it reads like the resolution of a policy debate the majority had already settled in its own mind. That is the sense in which this opinion is more political than constitutional, and it is why the dissenters were right to insist that the Court owed these litigants something the majority refused to give: the chance to prove their case.
No ratings yet.
You must be logged in to rate this post.