WEST VIRGINIA V. B.P.J. SUMMARY
On January 13, 2026, the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in West Virginia v. B.P.J., alongside a similar case out of Idaho, Little v. Hecox. The case concerns West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a 2021 law that recognizes the inherent differences between females and males. The Sports Act says that male students cannot compete on girls’ sports teams involving competitive skill or contact. The Sports Act draws this line based on objective biology; it does not consider gender identity at all. So male athletes who identify as female may still compete on boys’ or co-ed teams.
The Sports Act passed with significant legislative and public support. West Virginia schools have long assigned athletic teams based on sex to ensure opportunities for females, in line with the principles and promises of Title IX.
Before the Sports Act took effect, B.P.J. a then-11-year-old male who identifies as female, challenged the Save Women’s Sports Act in West Virginia’s Southern District, claiming it violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. In July 2021, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, allowing B.P.J. to continue competing on the girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams while the case moved forward. In January 2023, after months of discovery and review, the district court reversed itself, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and ruled the Sports Act constitutional by granting summary judgment for West Virginia.
In February 2023, B.P.J. appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which granted B.P.J.’s request to keep playing on the girls’ team while the appeal was being decided. Then in April 2024, a divided Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of B.P.J.
In response, West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court, and in July 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Throughout this lengthy case, B.P.J. has participated on girls’ sports teams, displacing hundreds of female athletes.
The Supreme Court will decide whether States may act to protect equal opportunities for female athletes by maintaining sex-specific sports teams based on sex, consistent with Title IX’s purpose and constitutional principles. Title IX promised female athletes fair and safe competition. West Virginia recognized that this promise had been under attack as more biological males competed in girls’ sports and quickly acted to preserve opportunities for girls.
WEST VIRGINIA'S ARGUMENT: The Save Women’s Sports Act is Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause
West Virginia explains that the Fourth Circuit’s decision was wrong when it reasoned that biological sex and gender identity are synonymous under the Constitution and Title IX. That interpretation erases the line between men’s and women’s athletics. Sex affects athletic performance; gender identity does not. Sex-specific teams reflect that fundamental physical differences between men and women exist.
Our case raises two arguments:
- Title IX forbids sex discrimination, not sex distinctions. So, while Title IX forbids treating one sex worse than the other, it does not forbid sex distinctions that ensure equal opportunities. In fact, Title IX specifically recognizes sex-specific sports are necessary to ensure equal opportunities for women, which is exactly what the Sports Act does.
- The Sports Act does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law treats similarly situated people alike. Males and females are not similarly situated in athletics, and gender identity has nothing to do with athletic performance. Also, when tested against either rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny, the Sports Act passes constitutional muster. Separating teams by sex is substantially related to West Virginia’s important government interest in keeping women’s sports safe and fair.
Title IX
More than 50 years ago, Title IX promised a new beginning for women’s sports—one built on equal opportunity. Since then, Title IX has had stellar results, allowing girls to be champions.
- Women playing in college sports rose from just over 15% of all athletes before Title IX to more than 50% of all athletes today.
- Colleges went from averaging two women’s sports teams to more than eight. Andrew J. Boyd, Righting the Canoe: Title IX and the Decline of Men’s Intercollegiate Athletics
- Female participation in high-school sports grew by more than 1,000%
- Thousands of female athletes now play on sports scholarships
- 94 percent of women C-Suite executives today played sports, and over half played at a university level.
Title IX prohibits sex discrimination (treating one sex worse than the other) but doesn't forbid sex distinctions. Title IX’s regulations explicitly allow sex-specific sports teams.
The Sports Act comports with Title IX because it designates sports based on biological sex. Allowing biological boys to participate in girls’ sports turns Title IX on its head, reversing its monumental work to protect and advance girls’ sports.
Equal Protection
The Equal Protection Clause ensures that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.
The Sports Act complies with the Equal Protection Clause because it treats all similarly situated people—biological male athletes—alike. It is undisputed that biological males have physiological advantages over biological females that significantly impact athletic performance. Tellingly, “B.P.J. recognizes the benefits of sex-separated athletics and takes issue only with the state’s definition… based on biological sex.” But gender identity does not change the calculus because it is not a useful indicator of athletic performance. So the relevant comparison is sex, not gender identity.
Moreover, the Sports Act does not classify based on gender identity—any student, no matter how they identify, can compete in sports. The law simply ensures similarly situated students are competing against one another. The only classification in the law is a sex classification, and that classification passes both rational basis and intermediate scrutiny.
WOMEN HAVE BEEN HARMED
In recent years, the country has increasingly seen males identifying as female competing in women’s sports—and winning. Examples abound: Lia Thomas being one of the most famous. An amicus brief was filed by 124 female athletes (including 31 Olympians), coaches, sports officials, and parents. In the brief, female athletes report experiencing "public shaming," humiliation, and erasure when forced to compete against males. They lost opportunities for championships, scholarships, and team positions. They have been told their concerns don't matter.
West Virginia saw these stories and observed how allowing biological males—no matter their gender identity—to play against females creates an unfair and unsafe playing field. That’s why the State acted. The time is now to protect girls’ sports and that is what West Virginia v. B.P.J. is asking the Supreme Court to do.
West Virginia Impact
- The Fourth Circuit's stay allowed B.P.J. to continue competing and produced immediate, serious consequences. In the girls’ Spring 2023 track-and-field season, B.P.J. displaced at least one hundred girls in the standings and prevented two female athletes from qualifying for the conference championships.
- Things worsened in Spring 2024, when B.P.J. placed in the top three in every track event in which B.P.J. competed, winning most. B.P.J. beat over 100 female athletes again, displacing them over 250 times while denying multiple girls spots and medals in the conference championship.
- In 2025, as a freshman in high school, focusing on strength events, B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the state in discus and eighth in shot put while competing against much older female athletes.
Responses to Men in Women’s Sports
Many responded to the influx of biological males competing in women’s sports.
More than half of U.S. states and the U.S. federal government have taken steps to limit biological males from competing in women sports.
The White House issued an executive order in February 2025 prohibiting educational programs from allowing males to compete in girls' sports.
Major national and international sports organizations have followed West Virginia’s lead to preserve women’s sports for female athletes.
- NCAA: Implemented new policy limiting women's sports competition to biological females (February 2025)
- U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee: Barred transgender women from women's competitions (July 2025)
- World Athletics (International Track & Field): Mandates gene testing for female category eligibility
CASE DOCUMENTS:
Read West Virginia's opening brief here.
Read West Virginia's reply brief here.
Timeline of West Virginia v. B.P.J. with document links
PREVIOUS NEWS RELEASES:
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey has filed an opening brief defending West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Supreme Court to hear State of West Virginia v. BPJ, the defense of the Save Women's Sports Act
West Virginia asks Supreme Court to hear boys in girls’ sports case
Attorney General McCuskey reacts to United States v. Skrmetti