Protecting God's Design—Women in Sports: The Supreme Court Weighs In on Transgender Participation

By Collin M. Hain

Chief Operations Officer

Jan. 16, 2025

As Christians, we hold firm to the truth of Scripture: God created us male and female (Genesis 1:27), and biological differences matter, especially in areas like athletics, where fairness and safety are at stake. On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard more than three hours of oral arguments in two key cases—Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (West Virginia)—challenging state laws that bar males identifying as female from competing on girls' and women's school sports teams. These laws protect the integrity of women's sports by recognizing real physiological differences in strength and endurance that males typically retain.

The cases question whether such bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title IX, the 1972 federal civil rights law banning sex discrimination in federally funded education programs—including athletics. Challengers argue the bans unlawfully discriminate based on transgender identity. Idaho and West Virginia defend them as necessary to ensure females have fair opportunities.

During arguments, the Court's conservative majority appeared inclined to uphold the state bans. Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the "zero-sum" nature of team sports, noting that including males can displace girls from rosters, scholarships, and competitions. He emphasized concerns that allowing such participation could "undermine or reverse" the progress women's sports have made over the last 50 years. Justice Samuel Alito pressed challengers on real harms to female athletes opposed to competing against males. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned broader implications, while the overall tone suggested skepticism toward claims that these laws are unconstitutional discrimination.

Overall, the tone of the high court’s majority struck similarly to its recent constitutional originalist approaches, as seen most notably in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022), which returned abortion policy to the states rather than imposing a federal rule. Here, the justices might be poised to treat school sports policies as matters for states under the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

Federalism: Founding Principles of State vs. Federal Authority

Our Founding Fathers designed a limited federal government to prevent tyranny. The Constitution enumerates specific federal powers (Article I, Section 8), like interstate commerce and national defense. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, federal powers are "few and defined," while state powers are "numerous and indefinite." The 10th Amendment makes this clear: powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

Education and school sports frequently fall under traditional state "police powers" over health, safety, and local welfare. In 1932, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said States can experiment as "laboratories of democracy," allowing variation—in this case some banning biological males in women's sports, others permitting it—unless it clearly violates federal law or core constitutional rights.

The Case for Federal Protection of Women's Rights

However, allowing men in women’s sports does violate core rights. The strong argument is that our existing federal civil rights laws, namely Title IX, should protect biological women nationwide. Title IX was enacted to ensure equal opportunities for females in education and athletics, dramatically increasing participation since 1972. In fact, it is federal law that transgender-proponents are basing their entire discrimination argument. Biological sex differences—rooted in God's creation—create unfair advantages for males, with or without hormone suppression—and that is a perfectly good reality. Allowing men in women's categories ignores God’s created reality and risks undermining Title IX's purpose by displacing girls.

If the Court upholds the bans without a nationwide mandate, states would differ, leading to inconsistencies in interstate events. A proper ruling would interpret Title IX to require biology-based teams federally, uniformly safeguarding women everywhere. This would honor civil rights protections and affirm biological reality.

A decision is expected by this June 2026. Let’s pray God would grant the Court wisdom to recognize the need for clear federal safeguards against males in women's sports.