West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶219

I join JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s opinion in full. I write briefly to address B. P. J.’s Title IX claim. As JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR explains, the Court did not need to hold that Title IX protects against discrimination solely on the basis of “biological sex,” even if only “in the sports context.” See ante, at 10 (majority opinion); ante, at 31, n. 14 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment in part and dis- senting in part). And it should not have. Instead, the Court should have assumed as much while leaving open the pos- sibility that Title IX’s definition of “sex” is more capacious. As the majority notes, B. P. J. does not argue that “sex” in Title IX means anything but “biological sex,” that is, sex assigned at birth. Ante, at 10. Accepting the concession for purposes of this case, I agree with my colleagues that her Title IX claim fails. When B. P. J. is sorted onto a team by sex assigned at…

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