admin
On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard argument in the West Virginia case challenging that state’s Save Women’s Sports Act, and the tone from the bench made clear this was no routine exercise in semantic contortion. Conservative justices pressed hard on questions of fairness, biology, and the original purpose of Title IX, signaling they may be inclined to side with states that insist on protecting female-only athletics.
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey stood in court defending commonsense distinctions that have governed athletics for generations, arguing that sex is not an abstract identity but an objective biological reality that matters in competitive sports. McCuskey told audiences he’s “very, very bullish” about victory because the law is designed to preserve the opportunities Title IX was meant to secure for girls and women.
Notably, the ACLU’s lead lawyer urged the Court not to give Title IX or the term “sex” a clear definition, a strategy that ought to alarm anyone who believes laws should be anchored in plain meaning rather than activist whim. Chief Justice Roberts and others pushed back, rightly demanding that statutory terms mean something if courts are to resolve claims of discrimination.
Coverage from major outlets reflected the justices’ skepticism toward the plaintiffs and the broader consequences of overruling state choices, with reporters noting the conservative majority’s readiness to let states set rules for sex-separated athletics. With dozens of states having adopted similar protections, the stakes go far beyond any one classroom or gym—this decision could settle whether biology or ideology governs women’s sports.
The ACLU’s refusal to stake out a clear definition of sex is more than legal posturing; it is an attempt to blur reality so that ideology can trump fairness. Activist lawyers would have the Court handcuff states and erase the hard-won spaces where women have competed, won scholarships, and risen into leadership—an outcome conservatives must resist on principle and practicality.
Beyond the courtroom rhetoric, West Virginia officials have pressed for tangible remedies where policies permitted biological males to displace female athletes, even urging institutions like the NCAA to restore records and honors that were taken from women. That push for restorative justice is not about vindictiveness; it’s about restoring the integrity of competition and making victims whole after rules were bent by political currents.
If the Court upholds common-sense state laws, it will preserve the simple notion that sports organized by sex should remain so by sex, not by the shifting pronouncements of elites. If it does otherwise, expect cascading consequences for single-sex programs across education and beyond—consequences that will fall hardest on the very women Title IX was designed to protect.
