A note for Gavel readers: The Gavel is becoming part of The Hill Insider — our new premium access digital subscription launching July 2026. As a Hill Insider subscriber, your weekly legal and policy briefing continues, now with live editor calls, exclusive analysis, and direct access to the journalists covering the cases and decisions that shape the country. Readers on the waitlist lock in early access and our launch rate before July 1. Join the waitlist →
The Republican-led states defending their transgender athlete bans at the Supreme Court predict they may even get a liberal justice’s vote.
“I think 8-1 or 7-2 is more likely,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) told me in an interview this week.
With a decision landing as soon as Thursday, McCuskey has his eyes on Justice Elena Kagan in particular.
“We were very, very encouraged by Justice Kagan's questioning,” McCuskey said. “She was very, very thoughtful, and it was very clear to me that she understood the weight of what this meant.”
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) is more reluctant to read Supreme Court tea leaves. But he admitted he was feeling good.
“He’s been very optimistic. I'm probably a little bit more superstitious than he is,” Labrador told me with a laugh when I informed him of McCuskey’s prediction.
“I don't like to count numbers before,” Labrador continued, “but I feel confident that we're going to have a majority of the court. And I would not be surprised if we get one or two of the liberal justices on some of the issues.”
In coming days, the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether states can legally bar transgender girls from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams.
It will impact bans passed in roughly two dozen states. Transgender athletes argue it violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee and Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools.
McCuskey and Labrador convinced the Supreme Court to take up the weighty issue. And based on the oral arguments in January, most court watchers I speak to agree that they’re headed for a victory.
“When you watch a male athlete defeat every single swimmer by great lengths, you just realize that this just doesn't make any sense,” Labrador said. “So, I think what the Supreme Court is doing, is they're just bringing common sense back to the American people.”
As the clock ticks down to Thursday’s opinion day, a new twist has emerged.
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the teenage transgender girl who challenged West Virginia’s ban, last month won a state title in women’s AAA shot put.
Event results show Pepper-Jackson threw for 11.88 m (38-11.75). The second-place finisher came in at 11.25 m (36-11.00).
It has added fuel to the fire for ban proponents. They say Pepper-Jackson is the latest example of how allowing transgender athletes to compete on women’s sporting teams creates an unfair advantage.
“In West Virginia, the current state champion of the shot put is a biological male who beat every single biological female in the state as a 15-year-old sophomore,” McCuskey said.
Even as he raised alarm, I was struck that McCuskey in our conversation still used female pronouns to refer to Pepper-Jackson. As a minor, the athlete is merely called “B.P.J.” in court filings.
“These are kids, right?” McCuskey explained.
“Which is why I'm very, very thoughtful about how I describe B.P.J., how I describe her pronouns, etc.,” he continued, “is that this is still a 15-year-old child. And she's been thrust into the national spotlight by legal groups and adults who are trying to use this example as something that is much larger than her specific performance.”
The attorney general told me Pepper-Jackson “will be welcomed by our athletic departments” to play on boys’ teams.
The Supreme Court is set to release more opinions at 10 a.m. EDT Thursday. A decision on Idaho and West Virginia’s transgender athlete bans is expected by early July.
No comments:
Post a Comment