Oral Argument on transgender athlete ban in women's sports (Case 2): West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Video Description

Oral argument audio (including transcript) of case [24-43] *West Virginia v. B.P.J.* argued at the Supreme Court of the United States on Jan 13, 2026. *More information about the case:* Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2025/24-43/ Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-43.html Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-43 Video produced based on information and transcripts on oyez.org, licensed under a CC-BY-NC License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Not affiliated with oyez.org or the Supreme Court. Argued on Jan 13, 2026. *Petitioner:* West Virginia, et al. *Respondent:* B. P. J., By Her Next Friend and Mother, Heather Jackson *Advocates:* - Michael R. Williams (for the Petitioners) - Hashim M. Mooppan (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners) - Joshua A. Block (for the Respondent) *Chapters* 0:00:00 Michael R. Williams 0:30:06 Hashim M. Mooppan 0:47:32 Joshua A. Block 1:19:12 Rebuttal: Michael R. Williams *Facts of the case (from oyez.org)* B.P.J. is a transgender girl who has identified as female since the third grade. At the onset of puberty, B.P.J. began taking puberty blockers and estrogen for medical treatment of gender dysphoria, effectively halting male pubertal development and aligning her physical characteristics with those of cisgender girls. Since her social transition, B.P.J. has consistently lived as a girl at school and participated on girls’ athletic teams. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires public school and collegiate sports teams to be designated based on “biological sex” and excludes individuals identified as male at birth from participating on female teams. This law, by its design and effect, prevented B.P.J. from continuing to compete on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams. Shortly after the Act took effect, B.P.J., through her mother, sued the West Virginia State Board of Education and other state and county education officials, as well as the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission. She alleged that excluding her from girls’ sports violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The State of West Virginia intervened to defend the law. Initially, the district court granted B.P.J. a preliminary injunction, allowing her to participate on girls’ teams pending litigation. However, at summary judgment, the district court reversed course and upheld the law, concluding that the classification on the basis of “biological sex” was substantially related to the important government interest in ensuring fairness and opportunity in girls’ athletics. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied B.P.J.’s cross-motion, holding that the exclusion of B.P.J. from girls’ sports did not violate the Constitution or Title IX. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It held that application of the law to B.P.J. violated Title IX and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment against her equal protection claim. *Question* Does Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prohibit a state from assigning students to girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on their biological sex as determined at birth?