Case: West Virginia, et al. v. B. P. J., By Her Next Friend and Mother, Heather Jackson, No. 24-43
Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-16
Status: Granted
Question Presented: 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.
On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in West Virginia v. B.P.J., with argument divided between West Virginia Solicitor General Michael R. Williams and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim M. Mooppan, who participated on behalf of the United States after the Court granted the federal government’s motion for divided argument in November 2025. That the federal government sought and received argument time signals the administration’s active interest in the outcome, adding a layer of executive branch weight to what began as a state-level dispute.
The case comes to the Court from the Fourth Circuit. West Virginia petitioned for certiorari, and the Court granted review. Full background is available on the case’s Wikipedia page and the Oyez case page.
The two questions presented sit at the intersection of sex-discrimination law and gender identity. On Title IX, the Court must decide whether a statute designed to protect girls from exclusion can simultaneously prohibit a state from defining “girls” by birth sex. On equal protection, the Court must assess what level of scrutiny applies and whether biological-sex classifications in athletic contexts survive that review. The 46 amicus briefs filed, including submissions from sports scientists and psychological associations, reflect the breadth of contested empirical and legal terrain.
The decision will clarify how federal sex-discrimination law applies to state athletic classifications based on biological sex determined at birth.