Part 1 of the series Judicial Round Up – Corralling Cases That Affect Schools
Clinton Campion of Sedor, Wendlandt, Evans & Filippi, LLC
This year, our posse of rugged Alaskan lawyers are going to round up the cases that affect schools in Alaska and throughout our country. Anyone who squints at the horizon can see there are many battles in our courts that will have significant impact to our schools.
We address controversial issues and cases because they are important and because you, as a board member or administrator, need to be aware of them. The cases we address this year do not necessarily reflect our firm’s or any firm member’s political or social beliefs.
This first installment focuses on two cases on transgender athletes that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in its upcoming 2025-26 term. In both cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Court will decide whether state laws that restrict participation in girls and women’s sports to biological females violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX. The decisions in these cases should be issued by June, 2026.
These cases follow the Court’s June 18, 2025 opinion in United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. —–, 145 S.Ct. 1816. In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito, determined that Tennessee’s 2023 Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity (SB1) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for gender identity purposes. Importantly, for transgender athletics cases, the Court determined that SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because it classifies patients based on age and medical diagnosis, not on sex. With this as the legal background, let’s look at the two cases that are coming around the corner:
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
In this case, the Supreme Court will decidewhether a West Virginia law that prohibits transgender girls from competing on boys’ teams violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
In 2021, the West Virginia Legislature passed the “Save Women’s Sports Act” which closes “competitive skill” or “contact” sports from biological males. Transgender girls are still permitted to participate on male or co-ed teams, and biological females are allowed to participate in all sports.
The mother of a transgender girl (B.P.J.) filed a lawsuit on behalf of her child challenging the West Virginia law in 2021 in U.S. District Court in West Virginia. The U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction in July 2021 which prevented West Virginia from enforcing the law.
In January 2023, the same judge reversed course and determined the Save Women’s Sports Act was lawful. This freed West Virginia to resume enforcement of the law.
Immediately, B.P.J. filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This appeal was successful, and once again, the State of West Virginia could not enforce the law. The Fourth Circuit panel decided that the West Virginia law violates Title IX.
In July 2024, the State of West Virginia petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the case, arguing that the Court should “take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance.”
B.P.J. opposed West Virginia’s petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. B.P.J.’s attorneys argued that West Virginia seeks to “create a false sense of national emergency” and there is “no need for the Court’s intervention now.”
On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted West Virginia’s petition.
Little v. Hecox
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether an Idaho law which prohibits transgender girls from competing on sports “designated for females, women, or girls” violates the Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.
The Idaho Legislature passed the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” in 2020 (H.B. 500). Lindsey Hecox is a transgender female who wished to compete on the Boise State University’s women’s track and cross-country teams. Hecox sued Bradley Little, the Governor of Idaho, and other state officials in U.S. District Court based on an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Hecox, finding that the Idaho law violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Governor Little petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case, arguing that the “Court’s review is urgently needed to resolve” the splits in the courts and to “preserve the equal playing field” for women.
Hecox opposed Governor Little’s petition, arguing that the Governor seeks to “create a false sense of national emergency when nothing of the sort is presented by this case.” Hecox maintains that the case is “about a four-year old injunction against the application of H.B. 500 with respect to one woman, which is allowing her to participate in club running and club soccer in her final year of college.”
On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Governor Little’s petition.
The Court is expected to hear oral arguments on these cases in the fall. The arguments on both cases may occur on the same day. Decisions on these cases are expected in 2026.
Current State of the Law in Alaska
In 2023, the Alaska State Board of Education voted to support a ban on transgender girls competing on high school girls’ athletics teams. On November 11, 2023, the Department of Education and Early Development adopted 4 AAC 06.115(b)(5)(D), which limits participation in female high school athletics teams to females who were assigned female at birth.
In Hecox v. Little, the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals noted that Alaska is one of twenty-four states which passed laws or regulations limiting the participation of transgender students in women’s athletics. 104 F.4th 1061, 1069 FN 4 (2024[JS1] ).
On July 30, 2025, a Superior Court Judge in Palmer denied a request for an injunction of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School Board’s Policy which requires students to use restrooms and locker rooms which correspond to their sex assigned at birth. X.A. v. MSBSD, 3PA-24-01525 CI. In this case, the Court determined that the policy did not violate the equal protection, and privacy guarantees of the Alaska Constitution. The trial court’s decision may be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Practice Pointers for School Districts
Before we head back down the dusty trail, we offer the following “Practice Pointers” to connect our commentaries with practical suggestions for school board members and administrators:
- Be prepared. These are high profile cases. You should be aware of these cases (and their outcomes) and prepared to address questions from students, parents, staff, and community members about them, regardless of the outcome.
- Are your District’s current policies on athletics participation consistent with DEED’s regulations? See 4 AAC 06.115(b)(5)(D).
- Are your policies consistent with ASAA’s Policies? See ASAA Handbook available at asaa.org.
[JS1] Does Hecox impact the enforceability of AK regulation?
