West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Jul 2025

1. Like everywhere else, West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females." A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. After extensive discovery, the district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State on claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Yet a divided Fourth Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal. B.P.J. then beat and displaced hundreds of girls in track and field. Ultimately, the same divided panel ruled in B.P.J.'s favor on the Title IX claim and vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants on the equal-protection claim. Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expand[ing] the scope of the Equal Protection Clause and upend[ing] the essence of Title IX." App.44a. He hoped this Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance." App.74a The questions presented are:
2. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
3. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that Title IX permits schools to keep separate girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex, and that West Virginia’s law limiting girls’ teams to biological females fits that rule. The Court said the ordinary meaning of sex in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the regulations was biological sex, and that separate teams are reasonable because of physical differences and the need for safety and competitive fairness. The Court also rejected arguments that the law failed because it excluded some transgender girls from all teams or because Title VII and Bostock should control. On the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that the States’ laws are sex-based but survive intermediate scrutiny because they are substantially related to important interests in safety and fairness. It said the Constitution does not require individualized exemptions or athlete-by-athlete comparisons, and that the laws classify by biological sex, not transgender status.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. She argued that the Court should not have resolved the equal protection question without first allowing the lower courts to make factual findings about the scientific record. In her view, the majority gave too much deference to legislative judgments about transgender athletes and competitive fairness, and it relied on materials and developments not properly established in the record. She said the dispute over whether transgender girls retain athletic advantages after hormone treatment could matter to the constitutional analysis, and that the Court should have been cautious about deciding that issue in the first instance. Justice Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.