Posted on 07/03/2025 9:59:50 AM PDT by CFW
Just over two weeks after the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors, the justices agreed to take up another high-profile issue involving transgender people – specifically, the constitutionality of laws that bar transgender women and girls from participating on girls’ and women’s sports teams. In a list of orders released on Thursday morning, the court granted a pair of petitions filed by Idaho and West Virginia, seeking review of lower-court rulings that barred them from enforcing such laws.
Idaho was the first state to enact such a ban in 2020. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who wanted to try out for the Boise State University women’s track and cross-country teams, went to federal court in April 2020 to block the state from applying the ban to her. She argued that the Idaho law violates both Title IX, a federal civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
A federal district court agreed that Hecox was likely to succeed on her claims and barred the state from enforcing the law against her. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that ruling, agreeing that the law likely violates the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Will the court first decide the definition of "woman" to assist Justice Jackson in her deliberations?
SCOTUS ping!
she should have to recuse herself.
Since she doesn’t know what a women is.
Somehow, I don’t thing the alleged “transgender woman” is actually a woman. It’s just more fake news.
I often go the msn page to look at stories and mostly to read the comments. They NEVER allow commenting on any stories related to the trannies and crossdressers.
But seriously folks. Of course she knows what a woman is. The lie was not so much an attempt to deceive as it was a loyalty test. A lot of political lies are like that.
She will deliberate based on the Democrat part line and have no difficulty.
Out of 99,281 biologists in the country, I am sure the Democrats can find one who will write a letter specifying a man who believes he is a woman is a woman.
If you don’t know, you don’t know. Ain’t no help for kadisha jackson brown. Right Amy? Maybe somebody will toss in some bio facts. This shouldn’t even be a discussion.
LOL Margot Cleveland’s comment on X.
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
41m
Now who could’ve predicted @scotusblog would go all Leftist in language as soon as Dispatch bought it.
SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
·
3h
Big news on today’s Supreme Court order list: The justices will hear two cases next term on whether states may exclude transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s teams based on the sex they were assigned at birth.
Okay, so the starting vote, before the hearings, is 6-3. Where will it go from there?
Real original. Even their names are a construct. What is it's dead name?
$5 says it’s another 6-3 decision.
If the men who pretend to be women are too scared to compete against other men in men's sports, then let them start a league of their own, and let them compete against each other. That's why they created separate male and female leagues and competitions in the first place, so that both sexes would have the opportunity to excel in whatever sport they chose to participate in.
I was shocked as I read as it felt totally tilted toward approving transgender as reality rather than political fantasy.
Why has no District Count "Justice" issued an Universe-wide injunction against God for mis-assigning sex?
Excellent point. She admitted that on national TV during her hearings, so she can't deny she ever said it.
There is nothing stopping the she-males from starting their OWN leagues.
Normal people do not have to accommodate them in any way.
How could a persons declaration of gender ever impact the legal requirements of non discrimination? A court evn the SCOTUS should be limited to say that a persons birth gender is the endpoint of any discussion on legal requirements.
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.