Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/30/2026 7:23:51 AM PDT by V_TWIN
The Supreme Court has established a new nationwide precedent that allows states to protect women's sports.
The justices ruled in favor of West Virginia and Idaho on Thursday against trans athletes who sued to gain access to girls' sports. The states were backed by the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), while the trans athletes were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Cooley Legal.
In the highly-anticipated rulings on West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the high court upheld state laws requiring student-athletes to compete on sports teams that correspond with their biological sex at birth rather than their gender identity.
West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey praised the court's decision in a statement to Fox News Digital.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Female athletes speaking outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Female athletes speak outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., after justices heard arguments on Jan. 13, 2026, regarding state bans on transgender athletes in women's sports. (Oliver Contreras/AFP)
"This is a monumental victory for every female athlete who has ever competed, or dreamed of competing, on a fair and safe playing field. Today's Supreme Court decision affirms what common sense and the law have long made clear: states have the right to designate sports teams based on biological sex, not gender identity. Without that delineation, Title IX is turned on its head and decades of hard-fought progress to advance female athletes is erased," McCuskey said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
HUZZAH!
A Reason, Logic and Common Sense WIN! BIGLY!
The irony of being a boy pretending to be a girl with the last name "Hecox." LOL!
Nice catch 😂
Middle name “has no” 😂
A win for us, but the SEC is fast becoming a Nike-controlled conference after peer pressure. Nike and Oregon leaders will push to repeal those rules citing Obergefell to allow men in women’s sport.
even the polls show that the majority of Democrat males AND females oppose pretenda-girls competing against REAL girls in athletics ...
however, based on analysis and extrapolation of data [because polls refuse to break out female/male results on this issue], grok says 35-45% of Democrat females SUPPORT pretenda-girls competing against REAL girls in athletics: IOW, 35-45% of Democrat females are anti-female ... shows just how insane the Democrat party is today, pretty much the exact opposite of what it was 50 years ago ...
In my opinion, this didn’t go far enough
they should have declared it unconstitutional for ANY state to allow biological men to compete in womens sports or to take any position set aside for a real woman.
Precisely why the left will be losing yet another part of their brain. This sound provide provide some nutty sound bites from the SMIDs.
It is fundamentally a despicable example of lawless, despotic inhumanity.
At this point I’m surprised they did decide for trans athletes. 🙄
They did split the baby a bit
Thanks. I heard about the partials and was mistaken. I stand corrected.
I would think that, as long as the national organizations, like the NCAA and other groups that “bundle” smaller organizations for national athletic purposes, make rules that forbid the entry of biologically-male athletes into “national” competitions, that would discourage those smaller groups .. like State athletic organizations .. from allowing their participation. What school or organization is going to allow biologically-male athletes to participate when those athletes cannot participate in national contests. I would certainly hate for my college to allow their participation and become dependent on them in their line-ups and then not be able to use them for national contests.
Here is the full first set of paragraph that should have been posted as the excerpt. Note it was a 6-3 vote. The paragraph under the vote info is very relavent. All nine justices agreed with parts of the ruling.
The Supreme Court has established a new nationwide precedent that allows states to protect women’s sports.
The justices ruled in favor of West Virginia and Idaho on Thursday against trans athletes who sued to gain access to girls’ sports. The states were backed by the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), while the trans athletes were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Cooley Legal.
In the highly-anticipated rulings in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the high court upheld state laws requiring student-athletes to compete on sports teams that correspond with their biological sex at birth rather than their gender identity.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3.
Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring with the judgment in part and dissenting in part, which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.
West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey praised the court’s decision in a statement to Fox News Digital.
“The Supreme Court has established a new nationwide precedent that allows states to protect women’s sports.”
This is a two-edged sword. The ruling essentially “allows” states to enact laws that protect women’s sports. But it also will allow other states to enact laws that force recognition of males who believe they are females to compete with and share locker rooms/showers with biological females.
The lawsuits weren’t about boys are boys and girls are girls. It was about states being allowed to enact and enforce laws that didn’t violate section IX.
On both M/F and birthrght citizenship the majority on the Court clearly held what they (and most Americans) see is the law and commonsense.
Pro or anti Trump (or any other person) had nothing to do with it.
FReepers who disagree with the court on birthright citizenship are in the minority... as well as being wrong on the law.
FReepers who agree with the court on M/F are in the majority and are correct on the law ... and also on biology.
No, we need GOOD biologists—and men OUT of women’s sports!
As noted in a footnote on page 8. These two cases are only about one aspect of the issues. It is also the subject of several ballot questions across the country. See Maine, Arizona, etc. I am aware it is a slight distiction, but unless congress were to unversially banned boys/men from particpating in female sports and likewise ban girls/woman from particpating in male sports, these cases will move through the process as separate issues.
In the instance of Maine, the ballot question equally prohibits participation and access to each other locker rooms and bathroom facilities.
Title IX (was probably wrongly) focused on protecting only girls.
1 As the plaintiffs, the States, and the United States as amicus curiae all agree, these cases do not present the distinct question of whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may allow biological males who identify as female to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams. That question is currently the subject of litigation in some lower courts. Nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question. In addition, nothing in this opinion should be interpreted toaddress or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.