In first big case of the term, Supreme Court tackles free speech and LGBTQ rights

Types : In the News

Since 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court has adjudicated two landmark cases involving transgender-related rights. Its new term includes several more. These closely watched cases could have seismic ramifications – especially if the court addresses whether transgender individuals deserve civil rights protections as a class.

First on the docket, the nine justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday about whether Colorado can ban a therapist from practicing “conversion therapy” on LGBTQ+ minors. Chiles v. Salazar, brought by a plaintiff who is a therapist and a Christian, revolves around free speech.

Later this term, the court will also mull a pair of cases involving states banning transgender athletes from participating in girls sports. Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. involve questions about the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the boundary lines of Title IX.

Title IX and transgender athletes
In November, the justices will be refereeing a pair of cases related to sports.

The legislatures of Idaho and West Virginia passed acts stipulating that men’s and women’s sports should be classified according to biological sex determined at birth. Those respective laws have been challenged by transgender athletes in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. (The plaintiff in the latter has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the legal challenge because she has decided to withdraw from athletic competition; Idaho has requested that the case continue.) The two sides offer competing interpretations of Title IX, which prohibits schools that receive federal funding from discriminating “on the basis of sex.”

The tussle is over fairness. Advocates on the side of Little and West Virginia argue that those born biologically male have a strength advantage, particularly after puberty, and as a result, transgender women should be precluded from competing with biological women. They say it’s a matter of protecting women’s sports as part of Title IX.

The challengers, on the contrary, say that it’s unfair discrimination to ban someone who identifies as a girl from competing in the female category of sports. They argue that the bans constitute the very kind of discrimination Title IX seeks to prevent. And that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The cases both relate to female competitions, which have been more contentious than the issue of transgender boys participating in male sports.

“Though the case is about transgender athlete bans, it is possible, if not likely, that the Supreme Court will issue broader pronouncements about the scope of Title IX and the equal protection clause,” says Carrie Evans Wilson, a partner at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, a law firm whose specialties include Title IX cases. “Whatever the holding of the court is, it will be applicable to many other areas that affect the rights of LGBTQIA+ students.”