Is A Transgender Child A Legal Threat?

Xylee Alvarez

January 2026

The Supreme Court considers whether a state may exclude a transgender girl from school sports simply for being who she is. 

The Supreme Court recently heard the case of B.P.J., a transgender girl who wanted to do something completely ordinary: play on her middle school’s girls’ sports teams. She is no professional athlete, nor dominating competition, she’s a child who wants to participate in school sports alongside her peers. However, West Virginia denied her this opportunity because the state decided who she is. 

West Virginia passed a law banning transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports teams. The state claims the law is about protecting fairness and preserving opportunities for cisgender girls. The law does not require any individualized assessment. It doesn’t consider her age, her development, or her medical treatment. It does not weigh evidence, but what it does do is draw a hard line and tells transgender girls that no matter their circumstances, they are excluded!

B.P.J. challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. A lower court allowed her to play while the case proceeds, recognizing the harm of forcing a child to sit on the sidelines because the state doesn’t approve of her identity. West Virginia appealed. 

West Virginia is arguing that allowing B.P.J to play interferes with the state’s authority to regulate school sports. This case isn’t about some elite sports; it’s a middle school girl who wishes to be ordinary. Can states treat transgender children as problems to be managed rather than people to be protected? This case is outrageous to me; the whole thing seems to be a mission to single out a child and make it known that she does not belong. Why should it even be considered an option to put a child through all this simply to play a sport? The logic that authority and exclusion are vital for convenience has appeared before in American law, and to me, it's ALWAYS been wrong. 

Let’s say the Court sides with West Virginia; it opens the door for blanket exclusions of transgender children in public life, justified by fear rather than evidence. The harm is immediate and lasting, especially for a child who quite literally just wants to participate. 

The most likely outcome is a 6-3 decision in favor of West Virginia, allowing the law to take effect. The court appeared skeptical of the lower court’s injunction that allowed B.P.J to keep playing while the case proceeds. Several conservative justices framed the issue less as a question of harm to a child and more as a question of who gets to decide, courts or states. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are likely to dissent, focusing on the harm to B.P.J. as a child, the lack of evidence that she possesses any unfair advantage, and the danger of blanket exclusions.