West Virginia v. B.P.J.
No. 24-43 · October Term 2025 · Civil Rights · decided June 30, 2026
Decided: West Virginia won 6-3. The model was right.
Expected vote 4–5 for West Virginia. Chance of a unanimous ruling 35%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 71% West Virginia.
The case
This case concerns a West Virginia law that prohibits biological males from competing on girls' sports teams, which was challenged by a transgender girl, B.P.J., who wishes to participate in girls' athletics. The district court initially upheld the law, granting summary judgment to the state, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding a violation of Title IX and vacating the equal protection claim. The Supreme Court must now decide whether Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from designating sports teams based on biological sex at birth.
- Does Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, allow states to designate sports teams based on biological sex at birth, or does it protect the right of transgender girls to compete on girls' teams?
- Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit states to create separate sports teams for biological boys and girls, or does it require accommodation for transgender athletes?
- The Court will need to interpret the scope of 'sex' under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause in the context of gender identity and athletic competition.
- The decision will have significant implications for state legislatures, school sports policies, and the rights of transgender athletes nationwide.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Like everywhere else, West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females." A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. After extensive discovery, the district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State on claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Yet a divided Fourth Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal. B.P.J. then beat and displaced hundreds of girls in track and field. Ultimately, the same divided panel ruled in B.P.J.'s favor on the Title IX claim and vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants on the equal-protection claim. Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expand[ing] the scope of the Equal Protection Clause and upend[ing] the essence of Title IX." App.44a. He hoped this Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance." App.74a The questions presented are: 1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
B.P.J. is a transgender girl who has identified as female since the third grade. At the onset of puberty, B.P.J. began taking puberty blockers and estrogen for medical treatment of gender dysphoria, effectively halting male pubertal development and aligning her physical characteristics with those of cisgender girls. Since her social transition, B.P.J. has consistently lived as a girl at school and participated on girls’ athletic teams. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires public school and collegiate sports teams to be designated based on “biological sex” and excludes individuals identified as male at birth from participating on female teams. This law, by its design and effect, prevented B.P.J. from continuing to compete on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams. Shortly after the Act took effect, B.P.J., through her mother, sued the West Virginia State Board of Education and other state and county education officials, as well as the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission. She alleged that excluding her from girls’ sports violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The State of West Virginia intervened to defend the law. Initially, the district court granted B.P.J. a preliminary injunction, allowing her to participate on girls’ teams pending litigation. However, at summary judgment, the district court reversed course and upheld the law, concluding that the classification on the basis of “biological sex” was substantially related to the important government interest in ensuring fairness and opportunity in girls’ athletics. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied B.P.J.’s cross-motion, holding that the exclusion of B.P.J. from girls’ sports did not violate the Constitution or Title IX. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It held that application of the law to B.P.J. violated Title IX and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment against her equal protection claim.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument | Voted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and deference to legislative bodies, which could lead him to uphold West Virginia's law if he views it as a reasonable exercise of state power to protect girls' sports. His jurisprudence generally favors a more traditional interpretation of statutory language. | 56% West Virginia | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | 10 / 7 questions at West / B.P.J. | West Virginia ✓ |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a textualist and originalist, meaning he would likely interpret Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause based on their original public meaning, which would strongly favor West Virginia's position on biological sex. He has consistently opposed expansive interpretations of individual rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. | 59% West Virginia | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | 4 / 5 questions at West / B.P.J. | West Virginia ✓ |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito is a staunch conservative who often prioritizes traditional interpretations of law and constitutional principles, and he is likely to side with West Virginia, viewing the law as a legitimate effort to preserve fairness in women's sports. He has a history of skepticism towards modern interpretations of gender identity in legal contexts. | 56% West Virginia | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | 0 / 2 questions at West / B.P.J. | West Virginia ✓ |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor is a strong advocate for civil rights and often interprets laws broadly to protect marginalized groups, which suggests she would likely support B.P.J.'s right to participate in girls' sports. Her jurisprudence emphasizes the lived experiences of individuals and the evolving understanding of equality. | 61% B.P.J. | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | 29 / 4 questions at West / B.P.J. | B.P.J. ✓ |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks consensus and pragmatic solutions, and while she generally aligns with the Court's liberal wing, her approach to statutory interpretation can be nuanced. She might consider the practical implications of both sides' arguments, but her past votes suggest a leaning towards protecting individual rights against discrimination. | 56% West Virginia | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | 12 / 8 questions at West / B.P.J. | B.P.J. ✗ |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch, while a textualist, authored the majority opinion in *Bostock v. Clayton County*, which interpreted 'sex' discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII. This precedent could lead him to interpret Title IX similarly, potentially favoring B.P.J. | 68% B.P.J. | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | 50 / 5 questions at West / B.P.J. | West Virginia ✗ |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often takes a pragmatic approach, seeking to balance competing interests. He may look for a solution that respects both the state's interest in fair competition and the rights of transgender individuals, but his general judicial philosophy often leans towards a more conservative interpretation of federal power. | 56% West Virginia | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | 39 / 8 questions at West / B.P.J. | West Virginia ✓ |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist and originalist, but she also emphasizes the importance of precedent. Her approach to *Bostock* and its implications for Title IX will be key; she might distinguish Title IX from Title VII or apply *Bostock*'s reasoning to support B.P.J. Her jurisprudence often seeks to apply the law as written, which could lead to either outcome depending on her interpretation of 'sex'. | 61% B.P.J. | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | 13 / 1 questions at West / B.P.J. | West Virginia ✗ |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson is a strong proponent of civil rights and often interprets statutes to protect vulnerable populations. Her jurisprudence suggests she would likely be sympathetic to B.P.J.'s claims, emphasizing the importance of inclusion and non-discrimination. | 66% B.P.J. | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | 36 / 2 questions at West / B.P.J. | B.P.J. ✓ |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.