Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Idaho’s solicitor general on Tuesday about whether transgender people should be treated as a legally protected class, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a closely watched discrimination case over school sports eligibility.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court appears positioned to uphold state laws that bar transgender girls and women from competing on female school sports teams—an outcome that would mark another significant loss for transgender Americans.
During more than three hours of arguments, the court’s conservative majority signaled skepticism toward claims that the bans violate the Constitution or Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funding.
More than two dozen Republican-led states have passed laws restricting transgender women’s participation in girls’ and women’s sports. Lower courts previously sided with transgender athletes who challenged measures in Idaho and West Virginia.
The dispute arrives as President Donald Trump pursues a broader rollback of transgender protections in his second term, including policies affecting military service and a federal stance asserting that gender is fixed and determined at birth.
What To Know
After a series of exchanges led by the court’s liberal justices, Gorsuch asked whether transgender status should be viewed as a “discrete and insular class” that warrants heightened judicial scrutiny—pointing to a history of discrimination in areas such as immigration, family law, and other legal contexts.
Gorsuch framed the issue this way: transgender status, he suggested, could be understood as “a discrete and insular class,” which would require courts to apply a more demanding standard when evaluating laws that target or burden that group—particularly given what he described as a pattern of “du jour” discrimination against transgender people in the United States.
Although Gorsuch is part of the court’s conservative bloc, he authored the landmark 2020 ruling that extended federal workplace protections to transgender employees. He later joined decisions that allowed states to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
Idaho’s attorney, Alan Hurst, argued that while transgender people have experienced discrimination, it is not comparable—legally or historically—to the entrenched, systemic barriers faced by groups such as women and African Americans. He also contended that the laws at issue do not explicitly classify individuals based on transgender status.
Hurst told the court that transgender people have not historically been treated as a “discrete and insular minority” under constitutional doctrine. He said challengers could not point to a record of statutes explicitly targeting people because they are transgender or showing a sustained lack of political power. “All they can point to is conduct,” he argued, citing restrictions like bans on cross-dressing or drag performances in certain venues. In his view, because non-transgender people may also engage in such conduct, those measures do not amount to classification based on transgender status.
Which federal law challenges trans athlete bans?
The central federal statute in the case is Title IX, the 1972 law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Advocates for transgender athletes argue that exclusions based on gender identity violate Title IX by denying equal participation. States defending the bans counter that Title IX was designed to protect distinctions based on biological sex, not gender identity—creating a direct conflict over how the law should be interpreted.
Who is Alan Hurst?
Alan M. Hurst is Idaho’s solicitor general and is representing the state before the Supreme Court. In this case, Hurst argued that transgender people do not meet the constitutional criteria for being treated as a protected class, emphasizing that the bans do not expressly classify based on transgender status and disputing claims of historical legal targeting.
Which States Have Passed Laws Restricting Gender-Affirming Care?
More than 20 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for minors, including Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Idaho. These measures commonly limit treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for transgender youth, often citing safety concerns and parental-rights arguments. The laws have generated widespread litigation, and federal courts have split on whether such restrictions violate constitutional protections.
