WASHINGTON—Lainey Armistead’s first-ever trip to the Supreme Court will be to watch her own case, a high-stakes legal fight that will determine whether states have the right to keep gender-confused men from dominating women’s sports.
Armistead, a former women’s collegiate soccer player, is fighting for West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports” law, which barred transgender-identifying males from participating in women’s sports. The fight over the law will come to a head Tuesday as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on West Virginia’s law and a similar measure out of Idaho.
“I just am baffled that a girl from Kentucky who went to school and at a smaller school in West Virginia would have the opportunity to be heard,” Armistead told The Daily Wire. “By them taking up this case, they’ve told me and all the other girls that we matter and that we’re important.”
Armistead was the captain of West Virginia State University women’s soccer team and played from 2019-2022 as transgender sports debate intensified across the nation. During that time, the debate rose to a fevered pitch as University of Pennsylvania transgender-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas won a national championship title in the 500-yard freestyle in March 2022 over female swimmers.
“I never imagined that this would be something that would be going to the Supreme Court,” Armistead said. “I’m really excited to have the opportunity to stand up for women’s safety and fairness. I had the opportunity that I had from Title IX. It’s never been abstract for me.”
Armistead joined the legal fight to defend West Virginia’s law in September 2021, becoming an intervenor in the case after hearing of female athletes in Connecticut losing to a male athlete competing as a woman.
“I heard about the girls in Connecticut who were robbed and were displaced on their podiums and missed out on opportunities due to men taking their place, and it really riled me up,” she said. “Whenever I heard about what West Virginia was doing, I felt that I had a responsibility to stand up for fairness and safety.”
The justices will hear two different sets of oral arguments on Tuesday, in the cases of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox. The result of the cases will determine whether 27 states can keep laws in place keeping men out of women’s sports, and could impact laws protecting women’s privacy in bathrooms and other spaces.
The question presented in the West Virginia case is whether Title IX, a measure that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and related activities, prevents a state from keeping males out of women’s sports. It also asks whether the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause limits states’ ability to designate sports teams on the basis of sex.
The Idaho case is focused primarily on the Equal Protection question, not the Title IX issue. Idaho became the first state in the country to pass a women’s sports protection bill in 2019 after a series of stories began trickling out of male athletes winning track and field competitions at the high school and collegiate level.
Idaho’s law was blocked at the federal district and appeals court level after a group of gender-confused athletes sued to block the law. West Virginia won its case at the federal district court level, but lost at appeals after a similar lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said that the lower courts ignored the obvious biological differences between men and women.
“Males on average possess physical advantages and competitive athletics that begin before puberty and only intensify after puberty. And those advantages are not eliminated by testosterone suppression after male development. The Ninth Circuit departed from settled law by redefining sex to include gender identity,” he said during a press call on Thursday.
While both cases will have separate oral arguments, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a joint opinion that will address both cases.
Both states are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped to craft the women’s sports legislation. Jonathan Scruggs, a lawyer with ADF, said that ultimately the justices will be considering the “what is a woman?” question.
“Does your identity and the fact that you take certain medical treatments make you a woman, or is it rooted in biology? And that is something that the Supreme Court is just gonna have to face,” he told The Daily Wire.
The ACLU has argued that a person’s so-called “gender-identity” should be included in the definition of sex for purposes of federal discrimination law. They point to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton, which included gender identity in the definition of sex for purposes of employment.
More recently though, the court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee and other states had the right to protect kids from transgender procedures. The court rejected arguments that shielding kids from transgender medical interventions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
“What matters more? Identity or biology? That’s the key issue of the case. And the ACLU is pushing that identity plus hormone treatment make you a woman effectively,” Scruggs said. “Our argument is no, that biology matters, it matters in sports, it matters in reality.”
The Trump administration is set to argue in favor of West Virginia and Idaho and has taken a strong stance on cracking down on transgender ideology.
While much of the debate before the court will be about abstract legal issues, the invasion of males into female sports has been tangible for hundreds of women across the country. A recent report from the United Nations found that transgender-identifying athletes had taken away at least 890 medals from female athletes.
In Connecticut, female track and field athletes Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell lost out on at least 90 opportunities to advance or medal in an event, thanks to the participation of male athletes, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Matt Sharp said. ADF currently has a lawsuit against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for allowing males into female sports.
“The moment you say one man can be on a women’s team, you’re saying that every single spot on that team can now be held by a man. You could have an all-man, women’s basketball team,” Sharp said.
Apart from the fair competition issues, Tuesday’s cases could have wide-reaching implications for women’s privacy in other spaces like bathrooms or shelters.
Adaleia Cross is a former West Virginia track and field athlete who lost out on a spot to compete in a championship because a male athlete known as “BPJ” had joined her team due to his gender-identity. According to Alliance Defending Freedom, BPJ has beaten 423 girls 1100 times and deprived them of 57 medals.
Cross says that BPJ not only took away athletic opportunities, but also made “sexual remarks” to her and other female athletes in the locker room they shared.
“B.P.J. regularly outperformed A.C. and other girls on the field, changed clothes in the girls’ locker room, and made sexual remarks to A.C. and her teammates,” a court filing from Cross said.
Adaelia’s mom, Abby, previously alleged that BPJ made comments in the female locker room like “suck my d**k,” and “I’m going to stick my d**k in your p***y and also in your ass.”
The ACLU has denied the allegations.
“Our client and her mother deny these allegations and the school district investigated the allegations reported to the school by A.C. and found them to be unsubstantiated. We remain committed to defending the rights of all students under Title IX, including the right to a safe and inclusive learning environment free from harassment and discrimination,” the organization told Fox News.
Sharp said if states are not allowed to pass laws recognizing biological reality, the foundation of American society could be shaken.
“When you ignore biological reality, it’s not just the playing field. It’s in locker rooms, it’s in restrooms. It’s in medicine, as we saw in Skrmetti,” he said. “There are young women and girls that are tragically harmed when we ignore this.”
Armistead recognized this fact and said she was very grateful that West Virginia acted to protect women’s spaces. Excited to show up to court on Tuesday, Armistead said the case was about the chance to stand up for the truth.
“It’s a monumental and exciting day. And I just have been counting down the days to go in and see something that is going to be historical,” she said. “I am so hopeful for the outcome and hopeful that the Supreme Court will protect women and girls.”
.png)
.png)
