A coalition of legendary sports figures, including eight Olympic gold medalists, has thrown its weight behind state laws designed to preserve fairness in women’s athletics as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on two pivotal cases this month.
The amicus brief, signed by 124 people including athletes and their family members, represents a significant show of support for Idaho and West Virginia’s legislation that restricts participation in female sports to biological women.
Among the notable signatories are Super Bowl-winning coach Barry Switzer, tennis icon Martina Navratilova, and gold medalists Kerri Walsh-Jennings, Summer Sanders, Donna de Varona, Nancy Hogshead, Laura Wilkinson, Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson, Monique Lamoureux-Morando, and Rhi Jeffrey.
Former NFL quarterback Steve Stenstrom also lent his name to the effort, alongside numerous female athletes who have firsthand experience competing against biological males in their respective sports. These include fencer Stephanie Turner, former NCAA volleyball player Macy Petty, former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Monika Burzynska, and U.S. Masters swimmers Wendy Enderle, Cissy Cochran, and Angie Griffin.
The brief presents a compelling argument about the broader implications of these cases, emphasizing both competitive fairness and athlete wellbeing. “By ruling in favor of West Virginia’s and Idaho’s laws, this Court can reaffirm that women should not lose their equal opportunity to compete in sports on a level playing field,” the document states.
The signatories go further, describing the emotional toll on female competitors. “It is hard to express the pain, humiliation, frustration, and shame women experience when they are forced to compete against males in sport. It is public shaming and an exclusion from women’s own category, a place that uniquely belongs to them,” the brief reads. “The shame does not disappear after competition is over. It stays forever as a memory of sanctioned public ridicule.”
The document emphasizes that “the psychological, tangible, and long-term consequences for females forced to compete against males is irreversible.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on January 13 in Washington, D.C., for both Little vs. Hecox and West Virginia vs. BPJ. The outcomes could establish nationwide precedent for how states handle transgender participation in women’s athletics.
The Little vs. Hecox case originated in 2020 when transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox sought to join Boise State’s women’s cross-country team and challenged Idaho’s protective law. A federal judge initially blocked the state law, and a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld that injunction in 2023. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in July, Hecox attempted to have it dismissed, stating a decision to “permanently withdraw and refrain from playing any women’s sports at BSU or in Idaho.” However, U.S. District Judge David Nye rejected that motion.
The West Virginia case involves transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, who received a preliminary injunction to participate on school sports teams. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the state’s law violated Title IX and the equal protection clause, a decision West Virginia is now appealing to the nation’s highest court.
On the opposing side, 130 congressional Democrats filed their own amicus brief supporting the transgender athlete plaintiffs. This coalition includes nine senators and 121 House members, led by Congressional Equality Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont, Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, and Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. The list features prominent progressive voices, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, though notably absent are Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman.
The Trump administration and state governments like West Virginia’s contend that Title IX does not explicitly protect the right of biological males who identify as women to compete in female sports categories. This interpretation stands in contrast to how transgender rights advocates view the landmark education law.
