Three states — Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia — have faced challenges to their laws banning biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear their appeals, with the date set for October 2025.

According to the Daily Citizen, “The Court will decide whether states have the constitutional authority to ban males from competing in female athletics.” In deciding, justices will deliberate two primary questions: “Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” and “whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.”

Idaho’s case, Little v. Hecox, came about after the state passed its 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, effectively barring biological males from competing in female athletics. Once Idaho enacted the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against the law. Now, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) has asked SCOTUS to allow Idaho to uphold its law. Similarly, State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. is the case stemming from West Virginia’s efforts to safeguard its law protecting women’s and girls’ sports. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is supporting both cases.

In a statement, Kristen Waggoner, CEO and president of ADF, asserted that “women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field.” And yet, she added, “activists continue their quest to erase differences between men and women by forcing schools to allow men to compete in women’s sports. This contradicts biological reality and common sense.” SCOUTS taking up these two cases, Waggoner noted, is “a historic moment.”

This comes amid increased pushback against transgender agendas. Only a matter of weeks ago, the court upheld Tennessee’s ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. On this issue, public sentiment is clear: 80% of Americans — including a majority of Democrats — support restrictions on trans-identifying athletes in women’s sports. Tensions remain high, but many argue the outcome of this hearing could redefine policies nationwide.

Supporters of the laws are optimistic. Idaho Governor Brad Little (R), for example, wrote in a statement that he’s “confident Idaho’s common sense laws to defend women’s sports will prevail.” West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey (R) stated this as an opportunity for “female athletes in West Virginia [to] have their voices heard.” He also stated confidence in how he predicts the court will rule, “because it complies with the U.S. Constitution and complies with Title IX. And most importantly: It protects women and girls by ensuring the playing field is safe and fair.”

Simultaneously, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the group that challenged the laws in the first place, expressed their opinion that the court “will agree with federal court rulings that this ban is unconstitutional,” as stated by Idaho ACLU spokesperson Rebecca De León. She went on to claim that “Idaho remains an incredibly hostile state for transgender people” and that the state “will be on the wrong side of history on this issue, and transgender people are the ones paying the price for it.”

While some argue it’s unfair biological men can’t compete alongside biological females, Mary Szoch, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, told The Washington Stand, “It’s sad that we have reached a point in American history where the Supreme Court has to decide if men can play women’s sports.” In reality, she added, “This is a commonsense question — one that any kindergarten-aged child should be able to answer.”

“Unfortunately,” Szoch continued, “Democrats do not seem to be able to” answer even such a rudimentary question. Echoing this, Labrador, in an exclusive comment to TWS, underscored the case’s significance: “This case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to restore common sense to women’s sports nationwide. Idaho’s position is simple: men and women are biologically different, and those differences matter in athletics. Male athletes have inherent physical advantages that cannot be ignored.”

Labrador also highlighted Idaho’s pioneering role, noting, “Idaho led the nation in protecting women’s sports” by passing the first law to safeguard female athletes from male competition. “We believe you deserve fair competition,” Labrador affirmed. “We will defend your opportunities, your records, and your safety every step of the way to the Supreme Court.”

Szoch concluded with a call for clarity and caution: “Let’s pray that the Supreme Court uses common sense and recognizes that when men play women’s sports, not only do they have an advantage, but they also put women’s safety — even their lives — at risk.”