West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶193

It is especially problematic to change course here. Recall that for nearly five years before the State enacted this ban, it had allowed transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports in certain circumstances. See supra, at 3–4. Before that, sex-separated sports teams had existed for decades. The ban’s entire purpose, and its entire effect, therefore was to eliminate the possibility of allowing any exception based on the legislature’s fears, thus far not conclusively litigated, that transgender student-athletes categorically posed dangers to competitive fairness and safety in all girls’ and women’s sports. To the legislature, this move was necessary, as the Act’s title suggests, to “Save Women’s Sports.” 98 F. 4th, at 550; see also Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–23, pp. 2–3 (expressing a similar sentiment). B. P. J. sued, contending that the State’s decision, which will use her sex…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.