The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a transgender girl may compete on the girls’ cross country and track teams at her middle school in West Virginia while her appeal moved forward, signaling that a majority of the justices are not ready to enter another battleground in the culture wars.
The Supreme Court’s brief order, which let stand an appeals court’s temporary injunction, gave no reasons, which is not unusual when the justices rule on emergency applications filed on what critics call the court’s shadow docket.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a dissenting opinion indicating that states are entitled to enact laws “restricting participation in women’s or girls’ sports based on genes or physiological or anatomical characteristics.”
The case, involving conflicting conceptions of inclusiveness and fairness in sports, arose from a 2021 law in West Virginia that barred boys from competing on girls’ teams in public schools. The law made distinctions based on what it called “biological sex,” which it defined as “an individual’s physical form as a male or female based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The law is part of an escalating wave of state legislation limiting the rights of transgender people. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 19 states have enacted measures restricting transgender athletes in the past three years. Under a rule change to Title IX proposed by the Biden administration on Thursday, schools would not be able to “categorically” ban transgender athletes.
Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia’s attorney general, a Republican, said he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s order but viewed it as a temporary setback.
“We remain confident that when this case is ultimately determined on the merits, we will prevail,” he said in a statement, adding: “It’s just basic fairness and common sense to not have biological males play in women’s sports.”
www.nytimes.com
The Supreme Court’s brief order, which let stand an appeals court’s temporary injunction, gave no reasons, which is not unusual when the justices rule on emergency applications filed on what critics call the court’s shadow docket.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a dissenting opinion indicating that states are entitled to enact laws “restricting participation in women’s or girls’ sports based on genes or physiological or anatomical characteristics.”
The case, involving conflicting conceptions of inclusiveness and fairness in sports, arose from a 2021 law in West Virginia that barred boys from competing on girls’ teams in public schools. The law made distinctions based on what it called “biological sex,” which it defined as “an individual’s physical form as a male or female based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The law is part of an escalating wave of state legislation limiting the rights of transgender people. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 19 states have enacted measures restricting transgender athletes in the past three years. Under a rule change to Title IX proposed by the Biden administration on Thursday, schools would not be able to “categorically” ban transgender athletes.
Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia’s attorney general, a Republican, said he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s order but viewed it as a temporary setback.
“We remain confident that when this case is ultimately determined on the merits, we will prevail,” he said in a statement, adding: “It’s just basic fairness and common sense to not have biological males play in women’s sports.”
Supreme Court Rules for Transgender Girl in School Sports Dispute
The justices issued a temporary order allowing the girl to compete on the girls’ track team at a West Virginia middle school.
