Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned what might be the most virulently anti-trans Supreme Court document in history, had “concerns” about how Hecox and BPJ might impact cisgender women.
If the Supreme Court upholds state bans targeting transgender girls in school sports, it will mark a dangerous constitutional failure.
These laws are not about fairness — they are about government-sanctioned exclusion of a disfavored minority, in direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the purpose of Title IX.
The Constitution does not permit states to erase children from public life to score political points.
Categorical bans based on sex assigned at birth are discrimination, plain and simple. Endorsing them would tell legislatures they may openly target vulnerable groups so long as they wrap prejudice in rhetoric.
Such a ruling would not stop at sports. It would invite broader attacks on bodily autonomy, gender expression, and civil rights protections that depend on equal treatment under the law.
That is how constitutional erosion begins — one carved-out exception at a time.
The Court should understand what is at stake.
Upholding these bans would not preserve fairness; it would legitimize state-enforced inequality and permanently stain the promise of constitutional equality.
As a child of the Cold War I used to fear nuclear armageddon. Now it seems like the best of a bad round of choices/outcomes. And they're all of our own making, all the result of our species' collective inability grow the fuck up. Who needs Skynet when we've got MAGA?
She was 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 to getting the point there, for the briefest of moments. Not nearly long enough for self-awareness to dawn in that rat's nest of bigotry she uses for a brain, though.
Is my understanding correct that one of the things Title IX says is that if a sport only has single sex teams and someone of a different sex wants to play, they can't block that person based solely on sex? So for example, if you have only have a men's American football team and a woman wants to be the kicker, you can't deny her based solely on sex?
It seems to me that clause exists because the law was intended to prevent sex from being the only reason someone isn't allowed to join a team. If there was such a thing as a universal "right" to sex segregation in sports, women would never be allowed to join men's teams under any circumstances regardless of their qualifications.
I don't think sex segregation was the end-goal of sexual equality laws in sports, or in general for that matter. Sex segregation is a way to ignore the existence of women who are competitive with men and instead broadly discriminate based on sex alone, regardless of individual ability. Like basically, if you take the argument of "a trans woman taking the spot of a cis woman on a women's team" and instead apply it to "a cis woman taking the spot of a cis man on a men's team," I think that is really why they are currently segregated to begin with; it's a loophole that allows sex discrimination as the only reason why two equal competitors are not allowed to play against each other.
If the court gives the green light to ban trans athletes based solely on sex, I think that opens the door to both cis and trans women being banned from other areas of life based on sex because that road goes both ways (if they are allowed to claim someone is overqualified based solely on their sex without looking at any other factors, they can also claim someone is underqualified based on their sex alone). Considering that they overturned Row v. Wade, I wouldn't be surprised if they see the potential for hurting cis women as a incentive, rather than a deterrent, for allowing sex-based discrimination.
I’m sorry but this is small potatoes. There is a war against liberalism in the United States. Our fundamental structure of government is at risk. Join your brothers and sisters on the frontlines. Go to a protest, resist, support immigrants and provide mutual aid. We’re all in this together. Sports is a luxury at the moment. No one is safe, they’re specifically targeting blue states.
The rights of children to live full lives is not small potatoes. The instant we begin to classify some struggles as worthy and others and not - we have already lost. Do the work that calls to you and cheer on others that do the same.
Does the fact that the Supreme Court chose to take up these cases mean that people are not protesting, resisting, supporting immigrants and providing mutual aid? 🤔
Are you suggesting that instead of protesting, resisting, supporting immigrants and providing aid, we should spend our time tracking down the kids who decide to sue to play sports and tell them to stop? I feel like there are better ways to spend that time.
Wtf are you talking about? They can sue but we need to be focused on our own safety. They shouldn’t be our only shot at rights. We have a habit of using stand-ins. They’re expanding their attacks. We know how the Supreme Court is going to rule. We have ICE shooting people in streets in spite of court rulings. Sports can’t be our great white hope.
Who said sports is "our great white hope?" Who is doing the things that you are saying should not be done? 🤔 Who is not doing the things that you say should be done? 🤔
I haven’t seen any articles from Erin in the Morning about supporting Minneapolis. Not a single bit of information about getting a gun or CPL. I will try again to make myself clear this is a battle greater than us. We have much bigger problems than sports. Yes the Supreme Court taking it up is news but we all know how this is going to end. Where is our unity in the fight for democracy? Too many of us fly under the radar and don’t want to rock the boat. We need organization. Personally, I’m ok losing to win. What have you done to fight democracy? We need to lose the victim mentality and go on the offensive. Oh but the courts will save us, honey we’re well past that.
Personally, I hate sports. I think they are the most pointless of all human endeavors.
However, I see this sports ban issue as the nick in the granite block of the all-important Fourteenth Amendment. What is potentially at stake, if the court's opinion takes this line of argument, is that trans people may not be deserving of equal protection under the law under circumstances that those in power deem compelling. We would be the slightly less-than-human population in the broad calculus of who is to receive human rights.
And then who is next not to be deserving of equal protection under the law? Obviously lesbian and gay people, for other similar "compelling' reasons. Then women, I would presume, which is essentially what this article is about.
Equal rights in this country all hang on the Fourteenth Amendment, which is why the religious right wants to tear it apart judicially. This transgender sports ban is the foot in the door. Everyone traditionally targeted for discrimination should be afraid. They're coming for us all.
Oh, now these supposed "highly educated" people running the country are starting to see reality through the fog of their own discrimination. Yes, discrimination against one is discrimination against ALL. Barrett's concern is that any kind of discriminatory law against us could in fact affect her and her four daughters, hmmm...imagine that.
It is my most sincere wish that the unintended consequences of her judicial persecution do come back to bite her and her family. Four daughters, huh? I hope they can't enjoy participating in sports because creepy perverts will have to "inspect" them to make sure they're biological girls. The impacts on cisgender girls/women are going to be far, FAR greater than those on transgender girls/women. Let the suffering begin.
i think the lesson here is that we’re not welcome in cis society. maybe we should spend less time chasing cis acceptance and more time focusing on supporting one another. we genuinely debase ourselves when we spend so much time and energy begging cis people to treat us like human beings. do you know how many trans people’s medicine we could pay for with all the money sunk into advocacy?… idk, i think I'm just done with cis people and their spaces. like, i have cis people in my life that are my chosen family, but those people have proven they deserve my time and energy. idk maybe we need our own bars, sports, business, schools, clinics… etc. i know that’s something that would take decades. build our own things they can’t police and treat us like less than animals.
I am certain that they will go after that too. There is a long history of cis police and local government closing down queer and trans clubs and other spaces. They are still trying to do that, even here in woke Vancouver going after venues like Vantek and The Birdhouse! Like enough!!!!
I think we have to look at the bottom line of those in power - currently the religious right. It's well encapsulated on p. 5 of the Project 2025 manifesto: They want us all in prison, because they think we're "pornographic." Or as stated by a few other people in various ways, including Michael Knowles at a CPAC conference, they want us completely eradicated from public life. Erased. Gone. The only space they MIGHT grudgingly allow us, until they decide to kill us, is the privacy of our own homes. That means we either have to "detransition" every time we walk out the door, or we have to confine ourselves entirely to our homes (window blinds drawn) and have others run support to us. I'm not willing (or able) to do that. I lived in the closet for decades, and it almost killed me.
The quote I pasted below is idiotic. The lower courts have been defying this administration at every turn.
Also, is this person really saying that if we get a narrow decision, we have to still be afraid of all the ways the courts might not adhere to the decision? Like, can’t you say that about every decision every time? Really can’t believe this comment was included in this.
“We must prepare for a world where whatever decision, however narrow on its face, is read expansively by judges that have been placed in their roles explicitly to erase our legal right to exist,” they said. “This has never been a strict constitutional or statutory inquiry but instead a political one.””
Hey dipshit, bodily autonomy comes from liberal institutions. It will never exist if fascism wins. The right was never going to give you bodily autonomy and they will keep chipping away at your rights until at least midterms. In this battle you have to pick a side. The courts have ceased to be a neutral party. But tell me again that you inly care about your rights getting chipped away.
If the Supreme Court upholds state bans targeting transgender girls in school sports, it will mark a dangerous constitutional failure.
These laws are not about fairness — they are about government-sanctioned exclusion of a disfavored minority, in direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the purpose of Title IX.
The Constitution does not permit states to erase children from public life to score political points.
Categorical bans based on sex assigned at birth are discrimination, plain and simple. Endorsing them would tell legislatures they may openly target vulnerable groups so long as they wrap prejudice in rhetoric.
Such a ruling would not stop at sports. It would invite broader attacks on bodily autonomy, gender expression, and civil rights protections that depend on equal treatment under the law.
That is how constitutional erosion begins — one carved-out exception at a time.
The Court should understand what is at stake.
Upholding these bans would not preserve fairness; it would legitimize state-enforced inequality and permanently stain the promise of constitutional equality.
I'm going to start cheering for skynet...
As a child of the Cold War I used to fear nuclear armageddon. Now it seems like the best of a bad round of choices/outcomes. And they're all of our own making, all the result of our species' collective inability grow the fuck up. Who needs Skynet when we've got MAGA?
Yes I stood ready to execute the nuclear option.
We've been ready for my whole life
What does that mean? Maybe my age is showing 😂
I served on a nuclear armed warship during the cold War
I'm thinking of the Bruce Cockburn tune: "If I had a Rocket Launcher"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPqPOkK_gzU
She was 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 to getting the point there, for the briefest of moments. Not nearly long enough for self-awareness to dawn in that rat's nest of bigotry she uses for a brain, though.
Is my understanding correct that one of the things Title IX says is that if a sport only has single sex teams and someone of a different sex wants to play, they can't block that person based solely on sex? So for example, if you have only have a men's American football team and a woman wants to be the kicker, you can't deny her based solely on sex?
It seems to me that clause exists because the law was intended to prevent sex from being the only reason someone isn't allowed to join a team. If there was such a thing as a universal "right" to sex segregation in sports, women would never be allowed to join men's teams under any circumstances regardless of their qualifications.
I don't think sex segregation was the end-goal of sexual equality laws in sports, or in general for that matter. Sex segregation is a way to ignore the existence of women who are competitive with men and instead broadly discriminate based on sex alone, regardless of individual ability. Like basically, if you take the argument of "a trans woman taking the spot of a cis woman on a women's team" and instead apply it to "a cis woman taking the spot of a cis man on a men's team," I think that is really why they are currently segregated to begin with; it's a loophole that allows sex discrimination as the only reason why two equal competitors are not allowed to play against each other.
If the court gives the green light to ban trans athletes based solely on sex, I think that opens the door to both cis and trans women being banned from other areas of life based on sex because that road goes both ways (if they are allowed to claim someone is overqualified based solely on their sex without looking at any other factors, they can also claim someone is underqualified based on their sex alone). Considering that they overturned Row v. Wade, I wouldn't be surprised if they see the potential for hurting cis women as a incentive, rather than a deterrent, for allowing sex-based discrimination.
Thanks for this. I remember when some girls wanted to wrestle and play football; there were many protests for that to happen; and it did for a time.
The conservative justices paint themselves into a corner with politics and delegitimize themselves.
Thank you, S. Baum, for this very insightful piece.
The arguments you focus on, especially by Sotomayor, should be echoed loudly by every advocate for trans equality under the law.
And, yes, the sniper nest on the roof was slightly unnerving and sad statement of the times we live in.
I’m sorry but this is small potatoes. There is a war against liberalism in the United States. Our fundamental structure of government is at risk. Join your brothers and sisters on the frontlines. Go to a protest, resist, support immigrants and provide mutual aid. We’re all in this together. Sports is a luxury at the moment. No one is safe, they’re specifically targeting blue states.
The rights of children to live full lives is not small potatoes. The instant we begin to classify some struggles as worthy and others and not - we have already lost. Do the work that calls to you and cheer on others that do the same.
Does the fact that the Supreme Court chose to take up these cases mean that people are not protesting, resisting, supporting immigrants and providing mutual aid? 🤔
And the current course isn’t working. More needs to be done. The court is meaningless currently. This is defcon 5.
Are you suggesting that instead of protesting, resisting, supporting immigrants and providing aid, we should spend our time tracking down the kids who decide to sue to play sports and tell them to stop? I feel like there are better ways to spend that time.
Wtf are you talking about? They can sue but we need to be focused on our own safety. They shouldn’t be our only shot at rights. We have a habit of using stand-ins. They’re expanding their attacks. We know how the Supreme Court is going to rule. We have ICE shooting people in streets in spite of court rulings. Sports can’t be our great white hope.
Who said sports is "our great white hope?" Who is doing the things that you are saying should not be done? 🤔 Who is not doing the things that you say should be done? 🤔
I haven’t seen any articles from Erin in the Morning about supporting Minneapolis. Not a single bit of information about getting a gun or CPL. I will try again to make myself clear this is a battle greater than us. We have much bigger problems than sports. Yes the Supreme Court taking it up is news but we all know how this is going to end. Where is our unity in the fight for democracy? Too many of us fly under the radar and don’t want to rock the boat. We need organization. Personally, I’m ok losing to win. What have you done to fight democracy? We need to lose the victim mentality and go on the offensive. Oh but the courts will save us, honey we’re well past that.
Personally, I hate sports. I think they are the most pointless of all human endeavors.
However, I see this sports ban issue as the nick in the granite block of the all-important Fourteenth Amendment. What is potentially at stake, if the court's opinion takes this line of argument, is that trans people may not be deserving of equal protection under the law under circumstances that those in power deem compelling. We would be the slightly less-than-human population in the broad calculus of who is to receive human rights.
And then who is next not to be deserving of equal protection under the law? Obviously lesbian and gay people, for other similar "compelling' reasons. Then women, I would presume, which is essentially what this article is about.
Equal rights in this country all hang on the Fourteenth Amendment, which is why the religious right wants to tear it apart judicially. This transgender sports ban is the foot in the door. Everyone traditionally targeted for discrimination should be afraid. They're coming for us all.
Oh, now these supposed "highly educated" people running the country are starting to see reality through the fog of their own discrimination. Yes, discrimination against one is discrimination against ALL. Barrett's concern is that any kind of discriminatory law against us could in fact affect her and her four daughters, hmmm...imagine that.
It is my most sincere wish that the unintended consequences of her judicial persecution do come back to bite her and her family. Four daughters, huh? I hope they can't enjoy participating in sports because creepy perverts will have to "inspect" them to make sure they're biological girls. The impacts on cisgender girls/women are going to be far, FAR greater than those on transgender girls/women. Let the suffering begin.
Thanks S. Baum for this detailed reporting.
i think the lesson here is that we’re not welcome in cis society. maybe we should spend less time chasing cis acceptance and more time focusing on supporting one another. we genuinely debase ourselves when we spend so much time and energy begging cis people to treat us like human beings. do you know how many trans people’s medicine we could pay for with all the money sunk into advocacy?… idk, i think I'm just done with cis people and their spaces. like, i have cis people in my life that are my chosen family, but those people have proven they deserve my time and energy. idk maybe we need our own bars, sports, business, schools, clinics… etc. i know that’s something that would take decades. build our own things they can’t police and treat us like less than animals.
I am certain that they will go after that too. There is a long history of cis police and local government closing down queer and trans clubs and other spaces. They are still trying to do that, even here in woke Vancouver going after venues like Vantek and The Birdhouse! Like enough!!!!
💯 i live in texas. its a dumpster fire and i’m trapped in it 🔥
I think we have to look at the bottom line of those in power - currently the religious right. It's well encapsulated on p. 5 of the Project 2025 manifesto: They want us all in prison, because they think we're "pornographic." Or as stated by a few other people in various ways, including Michael Knowles at a CPAC conference, they want us completely eradicated from public life. Erased. Gone. The only space they MIGHT grudgingly allow us, until they decide to kill us, is the privacy of our own homes. That means we either have to "detransition" every time we walk out the door, or we have to confine ourselves entirely to our homes (window blinds drawn) and have others run support to us. I'm not willing (or able) to do that. I lived in the closet for decades, and it almost killed me.
and we know the isolation is just the start. because once we’re no longer visible, its easier to disappear us.
The Roberts Court is the most nakedly political court in this country's history. They have zero respect for precedent.
The quote I pasted below is idiotic. The lower courts have been defying this administration at every turn.
Also, is this person really saying that if we get a narrow decision, we have to still be afraid of all the ways the courts might not adhere to the decision? Like, can’t you say that about every decision every time? Really can’t believe this comment was included in this.
“We must prepare for a world where whatever decision, however narrow on its face, is read expansively by judges that have been placed in their roles explicitly to erase our legal right to exist,” they said. “This has never been a strict constitutional or statutory inquiry but instead a political one.””
Heartbreaking: worst person you know just made a good point
bodily autonomy and self determination. lmao god you’re incredibly stupid.
Hey dipshit, bodily autonomy comes from liberal institutions. It will never exist if fascism wins. The right was never going to give you bodily autonomy and they will keep chipping away at your rights until at least midterms. In this battle you have to pick a side. The courts have ceased to be a neutral party. But tell me again that you inly care about your rights getting chipped away.