Two Cases To Protect Girls Sports Set For Oral Arguments Before The Supreme Court Tomorrow

Can states like West Virginia and Idaho pass laws protecting girl athletes? That is the prominent question that comes before The Supreme Court tomorrow, January 13th, 2026, during oral arguments for "State of West Virginia v. B.P.J." and "Little v. Hecox". As both cases involve female athletes, some at the collegiate level and some at the middle-school level, who had promising athletic careers until a male was allowed to compete against them.

In "State of West Virginia v. B. P. J.", Adaleia Cross was a middle school track and field athlete. She excelled in her sport until a boy who wanted to be a girl was allowed to compete with the girls. He was even allowed "to share" the girls' locker room. With the girls being sent the message that "their comfort doesn't matter. It is his comfort that matters because he wants to be a girl." Not content with merely displacing them from their top athletic performances, he would taunt them about the ease with which he was beating them so handily. As Adaleia Cross puts it, she wants all of this "to stop so badly" before her younger sister is of age to compete in what is supposed to be girls sports.

The state of West Virginia tried to protect girls like Adaleia from losing their athletic based scholarships by passing the "Save Women's Sports Act". An act designed to ensure equal opportunities for women and girls in sports and protect their safety by making sure they aren't forced to complete against males. It was a fair enough proposition, except the ACLU, in its quest for universal fairness for all except women, filed a lawsuit challenging the law. And now "The Mountain State" alongside attorneys from The Alliance Defending Freedom, are scheduled to present their arguments trying to protect women's athletics before The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Similarly, in Idaho, Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall were successful collegiate athletes. That is until in 2019 when they ran against and lost to a male athlete, who should not have been competing in a women's sport. They even got bumped down a placement level because of his participation. The State of Idaho tried its best to protect young ladies like Madison and Mary Kate, by passing the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" in March of 2020. Yet, the American Civil Liberties Union, commonly known as the ACLU, in its quest for civil liberties for all except women, promptly challenged the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" in court merely a few weeks later. Now, The State of Idaho, alongside attorneys from The Alliance Defending Freedom, are presenting their oral arguments before The Supreme Court on Tuesday, as well. For as the young ladies from Idaho put it, the ACLU is trying to "get rid of those protected opportunities for women that they did have fifty years ago."

For in 1971, before Title IX was signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon on June 23rd, 1972, only 1% of college athletic budgets went to women's sports programs. Male athletes outnumbered high school athletes 12.5 to 1 in high school. Yet, after the passage of Title IX into law, female participation in sports at the high school level grew by 1057% and by 614% at the college level. With some women even being able to make a career of their athleticism through professional opportunities with the WNBA, among others.

Now all of those hard fought gains are in peril, as organizations like the ACLU try erode the hard fought Title IX opportunities for women and girls in athletics in favor of boys who fancy themselves females. And on Tuesday, January 13th, 2026, Adaelia Cross and Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall are hoping The United States Supreme Court will give them the opportunity to stand up for American women.

Luisa Reyes is a Tuscaloosa attorney, piano instructor, and vocalist.