The Supreme Court this morning weighed in on one of the most divisive corners of the fight over transgender rights, allowing states to ban trans women and girls from competing on women’s sports teams.
Though the ruling likely allows bans in more than half of US states to stand, it did nothing to change the laws in states that allow transgender students to compete on teams that align with their gender identity. Those states can keep their policies.
But there is one thing for certain: Conservative lawmakers and anti-trans activists who oppose trans athletes’ participation will be emboldened to push for bans in states where they do not already exist.
“Why should a girl in Texas have different rights than a girl in Connecticut or New York?” said Paula Scanlan, who swam alongside transgender swimmer Lia Thomas at the University of Pennsylvania, on Fox News.
Scanlan is among a group of people who have called on Congress to pass a national ban on trans women in girls sports. Earlier this year, Republican congressman John McGuire introduced the “Riley Gaines Act,” named after the activist and former swimmer who has emerged at the forefront of the conservative anti-trans movement after opposing Thomas’ position as the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I title.
But many bans impact school-aged children who could benefit greatly from the social, physical and mental aspects of athletics, CNN sports analyst and USA Today columnist Christine Brennan said.
“This is now the needle that the sports world is going to thread to make sure they do not exclude children well before the elite level from the opportunity to learn those life lessons playing sports,” Brennan told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
Though it is a clear loss for trans advocates, there may be a silver lining (albeit small) in today’s ruling, CNN analyst Steve Vladeck writes.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his majority opinion reasoned that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sex, which is only constitutionally permissible if the policy significantly advances a government interest – a standard known as “intermediate scrutiny.”
This could open the door for challenges to other restrictions on trans people in the future, such as bathroom use, Vladeck said.