The Supreme Court seemed poised to uphold West Virginia’s and Idaho’s bans on boys’ participation in girls’ sports, signaling a major development in constitutional law and the ongoing political battles over gender.

During oral argument on Jan. 13, multiple justices indicated they thought Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which bars sex discrimination in schools, allowed states to segregate or keep males out of female sports competitions.

People take part in a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in two cases in which states have banned males from participating in female-only sports, in Washington on Jan. 13, 2025. (Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times)

An appeals court had ruled against West Virginia’s law partially on the basis that it violates Title IX by discriminating on the basis of sex. Both that appeals court and another took issue with how the laws targeted boys who wanted to compete with girls but not the other way around. 

Justice Samuel Alito, along with other justices, asked attorneys to define “sex.” After an attorney challenging Idaho’s law said she didn’t have a definition, Alito asked: “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”

The Justice Department suggested during oral argument that the court should view sex under Title IX as based on biological reproduction.

The highly anticipated case followed other major court decisions on gender, including one last year that upheld Tennessee’s ban on “gender-affirming care” for minors. On Jan. 13, the justices asked questions about a different precedent from 2020 called Bostock v. Clayton County.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said at the time that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” His decision focused on a different section of the Civil Rights Act—Title VII—about employment discrimination.

Although attorneys have sought to apply Gorsuch’s words to laws other than Title VII, he seemed to resist taking that leap. During oral argument, he suggested that his reasoning in Bostock should not apply to Title IX.

Chief Justice John Roberts similarly distinguished Bostock from the sports cases, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed reticent to issue a broad ruling on state bans. “Why would we … jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country?” he asked. 

The three liberal justices were more critical of the state laws, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggesting it should face relatively tough scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

—Sam Dorman

BOOKMARKS

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said that the federal government will suspend payments to so-called sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration enforcement, The Epoch Times’ Joseph Lord reported. The move is expected to face challenges in the courts, as judges have previously limited the president’s authority to rescind funding on similar grounds.

Trump said Tuesday that he has “canceled all meetings” with Iranian officials and that “help is on the way” amid days of unprecedented protests in the country against the regime, The Epoch Times’ Jack Phillips reported. “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” Trump wrote. 

The Trump administration will end temporary protection for Somali nationals in the United States, The Epoch Times’ Zachary Stieber reported. “Temporary means temporary,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told The Epoch Times via email.

Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said on Jan. 13 that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell could have avoided a Department of Justice probe if the central bank “had just responded to our outreach.” The Epoch Times’ Andrew Moran reported that Pirro said in a statement that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had repeatedly contacted the Fed about cost overruns and Powell’s June testimony before the Senate Banking Committee.