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 ...
She lied during her hearing, and everybody knows it. She never should have been confirmed for that reason.
I am somewhat hopeful. They took this up after the lower court struck down the state laws that banned the creeps from invading girls’ sports. If the SC was ok with it could have done nothing. That idiot Jackson should recuse but as we all know, rats never recuse and rats never resign.
Trans, Cross-dressers, and drag queens usually all get lumped together.
They shouldn’t.
They are very different.
Cross-dressers and drag queens are exhibitionists, like the attention, and go for shock value. They are creepy.
Legitimately trans individuals, those with genetic abnormalities, try very hard to “pass” as the other gender and fly under the radar. They are .001% of the population.
Trans-trenders, the pretenders, are the freaks doing the dude with a beard in a dress routine, the purple haired shrews raging about the patriarchy and pronouns, the criminals who suddenly claim to be trans when they get arrested, etc.
If they don’t have an underlying genetic disorder, they are not trans. They are mentally ill or fakes.
All these POS climbing on the trans bus don’t belong there. Gender dysphoria is a horrible condition, lonely and isolating, and a lifelong sense of “otherness.” I despise these POS taking a terrible condition and turning it into their excuse to be POS.
They’re all nuts regardless of what they are called, Jim.
Trans athletes should not be competing against women.
Go do your own thing. Leave the gals alone.
I’d be curious how they reconcile Title IX and trannies, if they favor the trannies.
That said, as Title IX is basically legalized quotas, I’m not sure how that stands in the first place - it’s like DEI.
"Supreme Court agrees to hear cases on transgender athletes"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
When Virginia Minor argued women's suffrage on the basis of the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause before the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (Minor), justices did not tell her to simply claim to be a man in order to vote in her state which allowed only biological birth men to vote.
Instead, the court clarified that since 14A did not add any new rights to the Constitution, since women's suffrage was not expressly constitutionally protected before that amendment was ratified, neither did it exist after its ratification.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship [all emphases added] before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Note that Minors' efforts helped the eventual ratification of the 19th Amendment, effectively giving women the right to vote.
"19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Given Minor, the states are free to discriminate on the basis of any criterion that they don't amend the Constitution to expressly protect imo, politically correct transgender "rights" in this example. Historically different state minimum age drinking laws are another example.
So why is the deep state judiciary wasting (imo) its time with politically correct transgender and other such cases when such trials arguably obstruct citizens' constitutionally enumerated right to a speedy trial?
"6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy [emphasis added] and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
On the contrary, the .001 have underlying genetic disorders that can cause their bodies and brains to develop differently. Hating on the. 001% is like hating on people born with missing limbs, extra fingers, blind, or deaf.
They didn’t ask for it; it was inflicted on them.
This will be an interesting case. Will the SC pervert Title IX to claim that biological women aren’t being discriminated against? Will the SC find some penumbra in the Constitution that allows transgender people to choose who the compete against?
“...based on the sex they were assigned at birth...”
People aren’t “assigned” their sex at birth...Their sex begins at conception....
This will be a good one!
My take: male vs female sports are not based on gender, but on biological sex. Done and done.
And I can’t imagine this court deciding anything else, unless they just want clicks.
“””Hating on the. 001% is like hating on people born with missing limbs””
Who said hate?
If organized sports can ban athletes that take performance enhancing drugs and narcotics, then they should be able to ban individuals who take other life altering drugs.
woman = female
transgender woman = male
I support every person’s right to play dressup, but I also support everyone else’s right to laugh at them and/or ignore them. Forcing others to respect their choice is ludicrous.
Bingo!.
Have always thought the GOP missed an important opportunity in that regard.
"So, even with medical evidence on the subject having been available for some time, and having spent a lifetime yourself as a woman, because you have no idea or are at least very confused about what a woman is, will you therefore recuse yourself from any hearing before the court based on a transgender issue?
Use of the 14th amendment is a losing proposition from the get-go. If held in the manner that this trans would like, then the ONLY kinds of sports existing would be unisex sports -- no separation of males and females AT ALL... and that was the reason behind the very existence of Title IX: that females wanted a separate set of playing fields so that they could compete in sports.
Title IX, therefore, CANNOT be conceived in any manner except that Congress must have intended the separation of BIOLOGICAL males and females. Anything else would be undermining the very purpose of the Act.
Ergo.... I can't fathom why two court levels concluded that She would 'likely prevail' ... except for judicial activists, of course.
Next case is the constitutionality of laws that bar non-judges from participating in court cases from the bench……
>>she should have to recuse herself.
>>Since she doesn’t know what a women is.
But then we wouldn’t get a legal opinion based on the thoughts of a hypothetical non-binary Martian.
it’ll be fine..
she still won’t keep her mouth shut.
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.