Author: Priya Kukreja

The Future of Equal Protection for Transgender Youth in School Sports

On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. These two cases challenged state laws that banned transgender girls and women from joining girls’ and women’s sports teams at public schools and colleges. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson challenged West Virginia’ state’s 2021 law that prohibited her, as an 11-year-old transgender girl, from joining her middle school’s track and cross-country teams. In Little v. Hecox, college runner Lindsey Hecox sued Idaho over its 2020 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which similarly bans transgender women from women’s sports and authorizes invasive sex testing practices. Together, these cases test whether the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports violate Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from treating individuals differently on the basis of sex unless the distinction is substantially related to an important government interest. In these cases, West Virginia and Idaho argue that their laws are intended to protect fairness and safety in girls’ sports, asserting that transgender girls have an inherent advantage over cisgender girls. Yet, Idaho’s and West Virginia’s sweeping restrictions prohibit transgender girls from participating in noncompetitive and recreational teams, while allowing transgender boys to join boys’ sports teams. The result is categorical exclusion of transgender girls in sports regardless of medical transition or athletic context.

During the oral argument, Justice Sotomayor raised sharp concerns about whether these bans truly serve fairness or instead discriminate on the basis of sex, calling them a “clear sex classification” that must survive intermediate scrutiny. She acknowledged the long-settled norm of separating sports teams by sex under Title IX, a practice no one contests. Yet, she drew a key distinction: excluding a transgender girl, who lives and competes as female after medical transition, is based on her transgender status intertwined with her sex, making it “by its nature sex discrimination,” and thus subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny that states cannot sidestep by redefining who counts as female.

Justice Jackson pressed Idaho’s lawyer on this question too, asking why medically transitioned girls, who have lost male-typical muscle and strength after hormone therapy, aren’t similarly situated to cisgender girls, undermining the state’s blanket premise that girls who are transgender have an inherent advantage. Justice Kagan also flagged the overbreadth of the statute, exposing how these policies target transgender identity over any evidence-based logic. While the Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination against transgender individuals is sex discrimination, it has not squarely decided if Title IX’s unique context allows greater leeway to address sports-specific concerns.

Since 2020, 27 states have passed similar laws as West Virginia and Idaho to prohibit transgender girls from participating in school sports. Many of these bans similarly authorize invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student-athletes at risk by allowing anyone to dispute a girl’s sex and force medical exams on her reproductive anatomy, genetics, or hormones. Such laws subject girls, especially those perceived as “too masculine,” to dangerous and humiliating surveillance, which has triggered coerced procedures, stigma, and career-ending harm worldwide.

The outcomes in these cases will impact over 380,000 transgender youth nationwide, with more than 50% living in states that restrict their participation in school sports. Although the conservative majority is expected to uphold the ban in some capacity, procedural quirks of the case may allow the Court to avoid setting broad precedent about transgender youth in sports for now. As the country awaits, transgender students, their families, and their allies continue showing up to insist that every child belongs in sports.

Conversion Therapy on Trial: What Chiles v. Salazar Means for Medical Regulation and LGBTQ+ Protections

The Supreme Court heard arguments on October 7, 2025 to lift Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” a discredited practice which targets LGBTQ+ youth to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. In Chiles v. Salazar, Kaley Chiles, a Colorado-licensed professional counselor, challenged a Colorado state regulation which prohibits providers from engaging in “conversion therapy” with anyone under 18. The practice can include anything from talk therapy to electric shock or pharmaceutical interventions. The Court heard arguments about what therapists may say to their patients—specifically, whether talk counseling is “conduct” or “speech,” and whether it is protected under the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause.

There is overwhelming evidence and medical consensus that the efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective. In August 2025, the American Psychological Association, joined by the American Psychiatric Association and 12 other mental health and medical professional organizations, filed an amicus brief in support of the Colorado law. Research consistently demonstrates that “conversion therapy” has long-lasting consequences, including depression, anxiety, suicidality, substance misuse, damaged familial relationships, loss of connection to community, self-blame, guilt, and shame. Twenty-three states have prohibited healthcare providers from subjecting minors to “conversion therapy.” A recent UCLA study shows 698,000 LGBTQ+ adults have undergone “conversion therapy,” with half of them (350,000) receiving the treatment as adolescents.

The central question for the judges in Chiles is whether Colorado’s law interferes with free speech protected by the First Amendment, or whether it is a necessary legal regulation of professional conduct. Chiles argues that “conversion therapy” is speech, not conduct, and thus states “do not have a freer hand to regulate speech simply because the speaker is ‘licensed’ or giving ‘specialized advice.’” Conservative judges shared concerns about the law’s apparent threat to Christianity-informed free speech. Justice Alito called the statute “blatant viewpoint discrimination,” posing two hypotheticals—one in which a boy asks a therapist to help end his attraction to men, and one in which he asks for support to feel comfortable being gay—and stating that the statute requires opposite results depending on the viewpoint expressed. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett also raised concerns regarding how laws justify medical regulations.

Justice Jackson, conversely, noted that states have a long history of regulating medical treatment, and doctors would clearly be liable if they used medication that the state deemed substandard care. Citing the Supreme Court 2024 decision in Skrmetti, which upheld the Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, Jackson questioned why the Colorado regulation “isn’t just the functional equivalent,” since both prohibit a medical treatment for minors that major medical associations say can lead to an increased risk of depression and suicidal thoughts. Justice Sotomayor was fundamentally concerned with whether Chiles even had standing to challenge the law, noting that “merely having a law on the books is not enough.” She pressed Chiles’ attorney to explain how she was personally harmed by the law, observing she does not face a “credible threat of prosecution.”

There is no clear consensus among circuit courts on First Amendment protections regarding professional speech. For example, the Ninth Circuit has held that there is a continuum, where on one end “public dialogue” gets robust protection, and on the other end, conduct such as individual treatment or professional counseling is not protected. Other courts insist that speech protections apply fully to counseling conversations even in professional settings, while many reaffirm that health professionals must provide treatment consistent with the government-regulated standard of care. In Chiles, the court seemed skeptical of Colorado’s claim that conversion therapy is conduct and not speech, but it remains uncertain if it will be sent back to the lower courts.

Chiles comes amidst a nationwide surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and decisions, including laws that ban or punish gender-affirming care, restrict trans athletes from participating in sports, and create religious exemptions for LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination protections. In two Colorado cases, in 2017 and 2023, the Supreme Court sided with Christian business owners who opposed marriage equality and rebuked LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws in the process. Chiles could not only redefine the boundary between speech and conduct and set precedent for medical regulations, but also have wide-ranging consequences on legal safeguards meant to protect LGBTQ+ youth from discrimination and harm.