...
By Hollie Silverman
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor turned her conservative colleague’s own reasoning back on her in a sharply worded dissent Tuesday, as the court handed down a major ruling on transgender rights in school sports.
The case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., asked whether states can bar transgender students from competing on girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. The court ultimately sided with the states’ authority to maintain sex-separated teams, framing the issue around Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Trump administration has made targeting transgender youth in sports a central policy focus, including filing a lawsuit against Maine for allowing transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams, arguing the state is violating Title IX.
Read More on News
President Donald Trump celebrated the decision in a post on Truth Social Tuesday, saying "BIG WIN: The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS. Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!!"
First Lady Melania Trump also weighed in on the ruling, saying that while she supports the LGBTQIA+ community, she also thinks the decision made by the Supreme Court was necessary to protect youth in sports.
“As many of you may know, I fully support the LGBTQIA+ community. But we must also ensure that our female athletes are protected and respected," she said in a post on X Tuesday, adding, "America, we can support the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and also protect opportunities for female athletes. Respect everyone and keep girls' sports fair. Both ideals are essential."
What Did Sotomayor Say?
Sotomayor’s dissent focused less on the outcome and more on the legal reasoning—specifically, the court’s continued refusal to treat transgender people as a protected class entitled to heightened scrutiny.
"I agree that B.P.J.’s Title IX claim fails, although on a narrower basis than that on which the majority relies. As for B.P.J.’s
equal protection claim, however, the majority, at this stage of the litigation, gets the answer wrong," Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
"Applying a form of heightened scrutiny divorced from this Court’s cases, the majority holds that transgender girls like B.P.J. who wish to play girls’ sports are not protected by the Constitution, even if B.P.J. is correct that neither of the State’s interests is furthered by their exclusion," she explained, adding, "Yet the Equal Protection Clause demands much more when a State deploys a sex classification to achieve legislative aims."
By invoking Barrett’s own framework, Sotomayor is effectively arguing that the court’s conservative wing is applying its principles inconsistently—or in a way that systematically disadvantages transgender people.
Legal Reactions
Attorney Chris Erchull with GLAD Law said during a virtual press conference Tuesday afternoon that the decision echoes a larger trend seen in the latest Trump presidency**.**
"It's terrible news coming down today from the Supreme Court," Erchull said, noting that litigation is still ongoing in other cases in New Hampshire and other states.
"One thing I want to be especially critical of is the fact that Justice Kavanaugh, in his decision, repeatedly referenced school sports as a zero sum activity, and school sports are not zero sum," Erchull explained, adding, "Any athlete will tell you that sports are about so much more than winning, they are about learning how to be a leader, they are about self-discipline and self-motivation, they're about learning teamwork, they're about physical health, and so much more.
"And so, the reason we have sports in our school, those are not zero-sum reasons. Everybody benefits when students have opportunities in school sports," he continued.
"Everyone Deserves To Play"
Maya Blasingame, a trans female basketball player, also spoke during the press conference about the life-changing impact that participating in sports had on her life.
"In my own life, basketball has been so important to me. I know that I have no control over the wider range of politics, or what happens in the rest of the world when I'm on the basketball court," Blasingame explained.
She recalled the cherished time spent with her grandfather teaching her the sport, saying, "I was very close to him...I had to always think about my childhood and think about being in the backyard with him, holding me up above his shoulder, so that I could dunk, you know, before the world got involved and told me it was wrong, I found so much freedom on the basketball court."
"Everyone deserves the right to play, everyone deserves to play, everyone deserves to have that light in their eye to find their freedom on their court, on their field and on the ice to build relationships, friendships with community, to learn lessons about termination, resilience, and what it means to work towards a goal," she continued.
ACLU Lawyer Says Loss Is "Devastating"
Joshua Block, ACLU attorney representing the teen in the case, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview Tuesday that while the ruling was "devastating," it was also narrow enough that other protections seemed to remain in place for trans youth.
"Well, it's obviously a devastating decision for the transgender girls who just want to have the same opportunities that other girls do," Block explained, adding, "At the same time, it's a very narrow decision; it applies only in the context of sports. It doesn't say that states can't choose to allow transgender girls to participate if they want to.
"And the court didn't give a sweeping sort of ruling that the other side was asking for. It didn't say that transgender discrimination is okay under the Constitution, and it didn't cast doubt on protections for trans kids outside the specific context of sports," he continued. "So it's obviously a loss, but we hope it's a loss that's narrow and it's confined just to the specific context of sports."
“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” Block said in a statement emailed to Newsweek Tuesday afternoon.
“The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed," he continued.
...
‘Using Their Own Logic’
In her dissent, Sotomayor pointed directly to arguments made by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in prior transgender-related rulings, particularly her concurrence in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a 2025 decision upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In that case, Barrett argued that laws affecting transgender people should not automatically receive heightened judicial scrutiny—a standard that requires the government to show a stronger justification for differential treatment.
Sotomayor seized on that logic, arguing that it exposes a contradiction in how the court treats sex-based classifications.
She warned that by declining to apply heightened scrutiny, the court is effectively allowing states to structure laws in ways that appear neutral but still turn on sex—a concern she has raised repeatedly in transgender cases.
"This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious, and evolving issues. These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development," Sotomayor wrote.
...
Core Legal Divide
At the center of the dispute is a technical but critical constitutional question: what level of scrutiny should courts apply to laws affecting transgender individuals?
- The court’s conservative majority has leaned toward "rational basis" review, a deferential standard that allows laws to stand if they are reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, according to KFF.org
- Sotomayor and other dissenters argue these laws are inherently tied to sex-based classifications, which traditionally trigger heightened scrutiny.
That divide has become the defining fault line in the court’s transgender jurisprudence.
...
A Broader Pattern
The sports case builds on a series of recent rulings in which the court has declined to extend stronger constitutional protections to transgender Americans.
In the June 2025 opinion for the Skrmetti case, the court ruled 6—3 that a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, finding it was based on age and medical use rather than sex.
Sotomayor, in dissent there, called that distinction artificial, arguing the law "expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status."
Her dissent in the sports case echoes that same reasoning—and directly challenges Barrett’s view that transgender classifications should not be treated like other suspect classes.
Legal experts say the disagreement will shape future litigation on issues ranging from sports participation to healthcare and education policy.
With more than two dozen states already enacting laws related to transgender youth, the stakes are high—and the court’s internal divisions are unlikely to fade.
...
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant, Robert Greenall, and Gray R. Thomas
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines