SCOTUS Ruling Expected Next Week In W.Va. Case  

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is expected to rule on West Virginia v B.P.J., for which it heard arguments in January.    

In 2021, the mother of a then-11-year-old transgender girl who wanted to join her middle school’s girls’ cross-country track team filed a federal lawsuit after the state legislature passed the “Save Women In Sports Act.”   

The bill stipulates participation for sports events to be based on biological sex of the athlete at birth. B.P.J. was assigned male at birth. She has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade.   

B.P.J., now 15 years old, won the West Virginia Class AAA girls shot put championship recently with a personal best throw of 38 feet, 11.75 inches, according to results reported by the West Virginia Gazette-Mail. 

The lawsuit argues that the exclusion of transgender athletes violates the federal statute Title IX, which bars discrimination against a person on the basis of sex.  

In January 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that West Virginia’s ban on transgender athletes competing in female school sports was constitutional and could remain in place. But a month later, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, issued a preliminary injunction that B.P.J. could continue practicing with her team while they deliberated. The Fourth Circuit ultimately ruled in April 2024 that the 2021 law violated Title IX.  

Then-West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey filed an emergency appeal in 2023 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the state to enforce the law while the Fourth Circuit considered the case. The justices declined at the time but agreed to hear the case on appeal in January 2026. 

At least two justices have already publicly sided with West Virginia while dissenting from the earlier emergency appeal. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, that a federal appeals court should not have blocked a state law. 

“I would grant the State’s application,” Alito wrote. “…in the circumstances present here—where a divided panel of a lower court has enjoined a duly enacted state law on an important subject without a word of explanation, notwithstanding that the District Court granted summary judgment to the State based on a fact-intensive record—the State is entitled to relief. If we put aside the issue of the State’s delay in seeking emergency relief and if the District Court’s analysis of the merits of this case is correct, the generally applicable stay factors plainly justify granting West Virginia’s application.”   

Each year, the high court begins to hear cases in October before concluding their session in late June or early July. According to SCOTUSBlog on X, the decision on West Virginia v B.P.J. could be issued as soon as Monday. But with decisions in seven other cases still pending, a second opinion day is expected.