U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew renewed attention Tuesday during oral arguments in a closely watched case over transgender participation in school sports. The case, Little v. Hecox, challenges an Idaho law barring biological males who identify as transgender from competing in girls’ school sports.The dispute centers on whether states have the authority to enact sex-based eligibility rules and what level of constitutional scrutiny applies, The Western Journal reported.
Mooppan said the law should be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, because participation in school sports is not a fundamental constitutional right.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Mooppan about the distinction, noting that intermediate scrutiny requires a “reasonable fit” between the law and the government’s objectives.
Jackson then pressed Mooppan on why a state would not need to craft perfectly tailored laws.
“I would think the state would just have to make exceptions where people can demonstrate that the justification that makes the state’s conduct constitutional doesn’t apply to them,” Jackson said.
Mooppan then responded that making exceptions is itself an example of tailoring. “That’s literally what it means, to tailor your law,” he said.
The exchange drew commentary from legal observers and conservative analysts following the case.
National Review legal analyst Dan McLaughlin said the moment reflected a basic disagreement over constitutional standards rather than a complex legal dispute.
https://x.com/baseballcrank/status/2011198968966103287?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2011198968966103287%7Ctwgr%5E4f23ac41e4ba79258a87f577bbe65af5a1e7a7e7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fconservativebrief.com%2Fjackson-legal-98191%2F
Others noted the moment as part of broader criticism Jackson has faced since her confirmation in 2022, when she replaced retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.
https://x.com/greg_price11/status/2011181040514056399?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2011181040514056399%7Ctwgr%5E4f23ac41e4ba79258a87f577bbe65af5a1e7a7e7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fconservativebrief.com%2Fjackson-legal-98191%2F
https://x.com/Cjpearson/status/2011168350953750922?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2011168350953750922%7Ctwgr%5E4f23ac41e4ba79258a87f577bbe65af5a1e7a7e7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fconservativebrief.com%2Fjackson-legal-98191%2F
The Idaho law at issue has been defended by state officials as necessary to protect fairness in women’s sports, while opponents argue it discriminates against transgender students.
The lawsuits were brought by Lindsay Hecox in Idaho and Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia. Hecox, a 24-year-old senior at Boise State University, has moved to dismiss her case as she approaches graduation in spring 2026 and no longer plans to compete in women’s sports in Idaho. Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old who has identified as female since third grade, is continuing her legal challenge and has sought to compete on girls’ teams, placing third in the discus and eighth in the shot put at a state track meet.
Both students have faced harassment related to their cases. In West Virginia, two students alleged that Pepper-Jackson harassed them while seeking to participate in girls’ sports, a report said.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by late June 2026, could have implications beyond school athletics, potentially influencing policies affecting LGBTQ+ rights in workplaces, public accommodations, and access to government benefits.
“States like Idaho and West Virginia, along with supporting groups, insist these laws protect student safety and maintain a level playing field, citing physical differences between males and females as justification. Idaho’s women and girls deserve an equal playing field. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports,” said Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador.
