West Virginia v. B. P. J.

Last updated

West Virginia v. B. P. J., 98 F.4th 542 (2024) is a federal court case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the issue of transgender people in sports. The court held that the West Virginia law barring transgender girls and women from participating on girls' and women's sports teams is unconstitutional. [1]

Contents

Background and procedural history

In 2021, the U.S. State of West Virginia passed the "Save Women's Sports Act," which provides that only “biological females” can participate in women’s sports in all public interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club sports teams at the secondary or post-secondary level," [2] barring transgender girls and women from participating on women's and girls' sports teams. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 12-year-old transgender girl, challenged the law on Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and Title IX sex discrimination grounds. [1]

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin originally blocked the law [3] but, after full briefing, ultimately concluded the state's ban was lawful. [4] A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit put the law on hold pending further review. [5] West Virginia requested the Supreme Court of the United States to lift the hold, [6] and its request was denied on April 6, 2023, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting from the denial. [7] [8]

Court of Appeals decision

On April 17, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court and ruled that "Save Women's Sports Act" unconstitutional. [9] The court held the law preventing transgender girls from playing on girls' teams is not "substantially related to an important government interest." [9] The court also found "B.P.J. has shown that applying the Act to her would treat her worse than people to whom she is similarly situated, deprive her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and do so on the basis of sex." [9]

The opinion writes that state officials are "forbidden from creating separate sports teams for boys and girls" because the "lack power to police the line drawn". However, it provides that Title IX does not "require schools to allow every transgender girl to play on girls teams". [10]

On July 11, 2024, West Virginia appealed the Fourth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. [11]

Ian Millhiser wrote in Vox that the case "could be the single most important transgender rights case in American history", because it would be the first case regarding Constitutional protections against anti-trans discrimination to go before the Supreme Court, if the Court were to take the case. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, better known as Lambda Legal, is an American civil rights organization that focuses on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) communities as well as people living with HIV/AIDS (PWAs) through impact litigation, societal education, and public policy work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Utah</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Utah have significantly evolved in the 21st century. Protective laws have become increasingly enacted since 2014, despite the state's reputation as socially conservative and highly religious. Utah's anti-sodomy law was invalidated in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, and fully repealed by the state legislature in 2019. Same-sex marriage has been legal since the state's ban was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in 2014. In addition, statewide anti-discrimination laws now cover sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, and the use of conversion therapy on minors is prohibited. In spite of this, there are still a few differences between the treatment of LGBTQ people and the rest of the population, and the rights of transgender youth are restricted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in the United States</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the United States are among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M. Margaret McKeown</span> American judge (born 1951)

Mary Margaret McKeown is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Diego. McKeown has served on the Ninth Circuit since her confirmation in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barbara Milano Keenan</span> Austrian-American judge (born 1950)

Barbara Louise Milano Keenan is a senior United States circuit judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a former justice on the Supreme Court of Virginia.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in West Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of West Virginia face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT persons. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1976, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014. West Virginia statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Missouri</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Missouri may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Missouri, in accordance with 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. In 2006, Missouri codified the legality of same-sex sexual activity into its statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Tennessee</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Tennessee may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1996. Marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in Tennessee since the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBTQ rights in the state are a relatively recent occurrence; with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBTQ persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in South Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of South Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Dakota, and same-sex marriages have been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Mississippi</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Mississippi face legal challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. LGBT rights in Mississippi are limited in comparison to other states. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Mississippi as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. The state capital Jackson and a number of other cities provide protections in housing and public accommodations as well.

The participation of transgender people in competitive sports, a traditionally sex-segregated institution, is a controversial issue, particularly the inclusion of transgender women and girls in women's sports.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

<i>G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board</i> U.S. court case dealing with transgender rights

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board was a court case dealing with transgender rights in the United States. The case involved a transgender boy attending a Virginia high school, who sued the local school board after he was forced to use girls' restrooms based on his assigned gender under the school board's policy. While the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the student based on Obama administration policy related to Title IX protections, the election of Donald Trump changed the underlying policy. A pending hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States was vacated and the case was sent back to the Fourth Circuit.


In March 2021, West Virginia passed House Bill 3293, "Relating to single-sex participation in interscholastic athletic events," which restricts transgender students from participating on sports teams that "align with their gender identity". House Bill 3293 defines male and female “based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth”.

The Fairness In Women's Sports Act is a common title for legislation passed in Idaho, Florida, and Arkansas that restricts participation in interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, club athletic teams, and any sports sponsored by a public school or university based on the biological sex of the individual. The legislation was introduced in response to concerns that allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports would create an unfair advantage due to their physiological differences. Legislation of this nature has been introduced in several states across the US and is part of a national debate over whether transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in sports teams based on their gender identity. Supporters of the laws argue that it is necessary to maintain fair competition and protect the integrity of women's sports, while opponents argue that they are discriminatory and unjust. Much of the current legislation is facing legal challenges and criticism from advocates for transgender rights, who argue that they perpetuate harmful stereotypes and ignore the diversity of gender identities.

References

  1. 1 2 Totenberg, Nina (April 6, 2023). "Supreme Court won't enforce West Virginia law banning trans athletes from girls' teams". NPR .
  2. ↑ "West Virginia Code Section 18-2-25D". West Virginia Code. Retrieved 2024-11-17.
  3. ↑ "B. P. J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, 550 F. Supp. 3d 347 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  4. ↑ Chung, Andrew (April 6, 2023). "U.S. Supreme Court declines to allow West Virginia transgender athlete ban". Reuters .
  5. ↑ Barnes, Robert (March 21, 2023). "Supreme Court asked to allow West Virginia's transgender athlete ban". Washington Post. Retrieved March 22, 2023.
  6. ↑ Hayes, Peter (March 10, 2023). "West Virginia Asks High Court to Weigh in on Trans Athlete Case". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved March 22, 2023.
  7. ↑ Liptak, Adam (April 6, 2023). "Supreme Court Rules for Transgender Girl in School Sports Dispute". The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2023.
  8. ↑ "West Virginia v. B.P.J., 143 S. Ct. 889 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  9. 1 2 3 "B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, No. 23-1078 (4th Cir. 2024)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  10. ↑ "BPJ-CA4-Decision.pdf" (PDF).
  11. ↑ "West Virginia v. B.P.J." SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  12. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (March 14, 2023). "A new Supreme Court case could be the most important transgender rights decision ever". Vox. Retrieved March 22, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.