Justices Ask For Definition Of Sex During Supreme Court Arguments On Transgender Students In Girls Sports

Authored by Arjun Singh via The Epoch Times,

Three justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on Jan. 13 pressed advocates in two cases regarding transgender student participation in sports to define “sex” for the purposes of constitutional law.

“What is that definition, for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” asked Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. during the first round of oral arguments in the case of Little v. Hecox. In that case, Idaho’s law H.B. 500—which bans transgender individuals from participating in women’s sporting events—is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student at Boise State University who attempted to join the women’s track and cross-country teams.

“We do not have a definition for the court,” replied Hecox’s advocate, Kathleen R. Hartnett of Cooley LLP. Hartnett, however, argued that her side was not challenging the definition of “woman” in H.B. 500, but merely the way Idaho has applied it to his case.

“The way it applies, in practice, is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women’s teams, and that there’s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so,” Hartnett argued.

Alito continued to press the question.

“Well, how can a court determine whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex if we don’t know what sex means, for equal protection purposes?” he said, referring to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires states to ensure persons “the equal protection of the laws.”

“I think, here, we just know that,” responded Hartnett regarding the definition of sex. “Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male and she’s being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute,” she noted.

Alito then asked Hartnett if a self-identified woman could be defined as a woman.

“The person says, ‘I sincerely believe I am a woman. I am, in fact, a woman.’ Is that person not a woman?” he posed.

Hartnett responded that she would “respect their self-identity in addressing the person,” though she argued that self-identity was not at issue.

The same question, seeking the definition of “sex” and a “woman,” was repeated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh during oral arguments in the next case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., where the parents of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a high school student in West Virginia, are challenging a state law that bans transgender students’s participation in school sports.

“You don’t think we should have an operating definition of ‘sex’ in Title IX?” asked Roberts to Pepper-Jackson’s counsel, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who then analogized sex to race.

Block responded: “I don’t think Congress adopted a definition of race in Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] in order to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. I think we’re not trying to police the accuracy of the terminology.”

Kavanaugh questioned Block on whether states could adopt different definitions of the term “sex” when setting laws regarding women’s sports.

“Do you think sex and Title IX can reasonably be interpreted to allow different states to take different understandings of that in their sports leagues?” he asked.

“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block argued. “I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn’t being used to discriminate by denying opportunities, just as I don’t think we need to define race in order to enforce Title VI.”

[ZH: Justice Brown Jackson once again went full retard…stating in shock that: “We are now looking at the definition of a girl and we’re saying only people who were girl assigned at birth qualify.”]

🚨 WTF. Ketanji Brown Jackson at the Supreme Court of the United States just said: “We are now looking at the definition of a girl and we’re saying only people who were girl assigned at birth qualify.”

Read that again. Slowly.

This is the level of confusion sitting on the… pic.twitter.com/X1PGdubK9E

— ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 🇺🇸 (@BarronTNews_) January 14, 2026

Oral arguments in both cases, held back-to-back, lasted three hours. The court is expected to deliver its opinion during the present term.

Here are some of the main takeaways from the oral arguments.

1. Reckoning With Previous Gender Precedent

One of the major precedents, or prior Supreme Court decisions, that could influence the justices’ ruling is Bostock v. Clayton County. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Neil Gorsuch said in 2020 that an employer who “fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender” violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

That law bars discrimination on the basis of sex but Gorsuch said “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Lower courts and attorneys have cited Bostock v. Clayton County to support left-leaning positions on gender identity, but the justices have indicated that ruling was relatively limited.

Both Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in Bostock but seemed to suggest on Jan. 13 that they thought that precedent might not apply to women’s sports.

Gorsuch, in particular, suggested he wasn’t willing to extend the reasoning in Bostock to Title IX, which is the civil rights law at issue in West Virginia’s case. That law bars sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational institutions.

While speaking with attorney Joshua Block, who was challenging West Virginia’s law, Gorsuch suggested the sports cases were “very different than Title VII.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst that he made “no sense” in one of his arguments and suggested he wanted to subject the law to an inappropriately low level of scrutiny.

2. Definition of ‘Sex’

One of the primary criticisms appeals courts leveled at the bans was that they discriminated against people on the basis of their sex.

During oral argument, multiple justices questioned how to define “sex.”

“What is that definition for equal protection purposes?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?”

When Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney challenging Idaho’s law, said she didn’t have a definition, Alito expressed skepticism.

The Justice Department spoke during oral argument in support of the states. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim M. Mooppan told Alito that the best way to interpret “sex” under Title IX was in reference to reproduction.

3. Reach of Decision

The justices also wrestled with how their ruling could impact other issues like locker rooms and certain activities.

Mooppan had argued that discrimination occurred when individuals were similarly situated. That wasn’t the case for men and women, he suggested, because of inherent biological differences. “That’s not discrimination, that’s a distinction,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested Mooppan’s reasoning might impact chess clubs. “I think a lot of people would say, you know, if you look at the ranks of chess grand masters, there are not a whole lot of women there.”

She added, “I think there are a lot of chess grand masters who would tell you that women, just like for whatever reason, they’re … not as good at this.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was more skeptical of a possible spillover effect and suggested Congress had focused Title IX on sports.

4. Concerns About Biology

One of the criticisms appeals courts had for the bans was that they applied to individuals who may not have undergone puberty, and therefore had lower levels of testosterone.

Multiple justices grappled with those concerns during oral arguments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, often considered a swing vote, asked Hurst how his legal theory would apply to “six-year-olds, where there’s no difference between boys and girls in terms of athletic ability, testosterone levels, et cetera.”

She later asked why the court didn’t need more factual research to determine the importance of testosterone levels. “Do we have to defer to the state?” she asked, alluding to the state’s determination about the scientific evidence.

Kavanaugh seemed hesitant to issue a broad decision blocking state bans because of factors like scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue. “Why would we … jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country?” he asked.

5. Sotomayor Worries Athlete Will Live in ‘Infamy’

It is possible that the Supreme Court won’t end up ruling on the challenge to the Idaho law because the male university student, Lindsay Hecox, who brought it asked to withdraw the case.

Attorneys for Hecox told the Supreme Court that he wished to abandon his appeal for multiple reasons, including that public scrutiny would distract from Hecox’s schoolwork.

The Supreme Court previously deferred ruling on the request to dismiss the case as moot, but Sotomayor seemed sympathetic to the request during oral argument.

“To say [Hecox] misrepresented her intent is going a little extreme when she honored all her previous intent—intents and only changed her mind when new circumstances arose, i.e., the notoriety of this case, correct?” Sotomayor asked Hurst.

Sotomayor went on to ask Hurst about Hecox’s name being on the case. “Do you dispute that having a case named after you makes your infamy … live forever?” she asked Hurst.

Idaho has urged the court not to dismiss the case, which is expected to be decided by the end of June.

The bottom line: The justices seemed inclined to back two state bans on boys’ participation in girls’ sports.