NEWNow you can listen to Pak Gazette articles!
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that involve transgender athletes in women’s sports on Thursday and make decisions about state laws that prevent biological men from competing in sports teams of girls and women.
The two cases, Little V
The former field corridor and Athletics Corridor of the Idaho State University, Madison Kenyon, got involved in Little v. Hecox after having to compete against a trans athlete its first year in 2019.
CLICK HERE to get more sports coverage in Foxnews
“My coach sat us in the room and told us that we would be competing against a male athlete at a specific meeting and simply let us know. And I remember sitting there and something like that, looking around the room like, ‘Well, what do my teammates think about this? What do we do?'” Kenyon told Pak Gazette Digital.
“Then, for us, it was not about whether I am going to compete or not. I will put everything I have and see what happens. And indeed, this male athlete beat me, beaten all my teammates and that continued to happen the whole season. So, it was when I said: ‘This is not fair’.”
Scotus Rules on the state ban on the ‘treatments’ of gender transition for minors in case of reference
Lindsay Hecox, a trans athlete from the State University of Boise, initially presented the Little Hecox was presented by Lindsay Hecox, a trans athlete from Boise State University. A hecox joined an anonymous cisgenero, Jane Doe, who was concerned with the potential to be submitted to the process of verification of sexual disputes.
The United States District Court for the Idaho district granted a preliminary court order, which blocked the law of being applied because it determined that the plaintiffs had probably demonstrating that the law is unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the court order, but now the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to intervene.
The former women’s soccer player from the University of Stetson, Lainey Armor, who is involved in the state of West Virginia v. BPJ, felt forced to join a legal battle on the issue after being informed about it and a way of contributing to a demand in the mountain state.
“I heard about the girls and women whose scholarships, opportunities and places on the podium were taking them, and I also heard that Virginia Occidental decided to do something about it. And they created the Save Women’s Sports law, and I knew that I wanted to defend that, because, not only for me, but also with progress of future girls.”
The demand of West Virginia v. BPJ was presented against the state of West Virginia by a trans athlete, known as BPJ, who was initially awarded a preliminary judicial order that allowed the athlete to participate in school sports teams. The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit ruled that the law violated Title IX and the equal protection clause. Now the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the State.
Arimstead and Kenyon joined their respective demands at a time when the national impulse was not necessarily in a tendency towards its cause as it does in 2025. But now their efforts have resulted in the opportunity to influence history in the subject with a pending decision of the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Supreme Court in cases could issue a broad precedent if states have the right to prohibit trans athletes in women’s sports. However, a lawyer who represents Armistead and Kenyon, John Bursch from Alliance to defend freedom, suggested that the company will not rely on the argument that trans athletes laws should be a matter of states rights.
He would argue the problem of the biggest image.
“I don’t think we should do that,” Bursch said about making the rights to the rights of states. “It is clearly the correct result under title IX, under the equal protection and common sense clause that men and women are different.
Until now, 27 states in the US. Bursch believes that a decision of the Supreme Court could ensure that its side of the debate maintains the impulse.
“I think this trend will continue to grow, and assume that the rules of the Supreme Court in favor of the states here, you will see that more states adopt this type of protections to keep women safe and level the playing field.”
No audience dates have been established for the case, but Bursch awaits the first audience at some time in January.
