Alito Challenges Definition in Trans Athlete Hearing

Clear Facts

• Justice Samuel Alito questioned attorney Kathleen Hartnett on defining sex for equal protection during Supreme Court oral arguments.
• The Idaho law under review bars biological males who identify as female from participating in women’s sports teams.
• Supporters of the law argue it protects fairness and safety for female athletes under Title IX.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito rigorously questioned Kathleen Hartnett, the attorney for the Idaho student in Little v. Hecox, regarding the court’s understanding of ‘boy,’ ‘girl,’ ‘man,’ and ‘woman’ for equal protection cases.

Hartnett acknowledged that schools often separate students into teams classified as boys or girls, and that clarity is needed on these terms.

“Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we’d have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether someone was excluded,” Hartnett said.

She further explained, “We do not have a definition for the court. We’re not disputing the definition here.”

Hartnett stated, “What we’re saying is the way it implies in practice is to exclude birth-sex males categorically from women’s teams and there is a subset of those birth-sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest.”

Alito pressed further, asking how courts can determine if there is sex discrimination without a clear definition of sex for equal protection purposes.

In response, Hartnett said, “I think here we just know, we basically know that they’ve identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth-sex male and she is being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute. So, we’re taking the statute’s definitions as we find them and we don’t dispute them. We’re just trying to figure out, do they create an equal protection problem?”

Alito also presented a hypothetical about whether a boy identifying as a girl, but who had never taken puberty blockers or medications, could be barred from girls’ sports teams. Hartnett suggested this was not the argument her side was making.

The Supreme Court heard the case as Idaho and West Virginia defend laws preventing biological males who identify as females from joining women’s sports, arguing it upholds fairness and respects female competitors.

Supporters contend that separating sports based on biological sex ensures a level playing field and aligns with Title IX intent.

Stay updated as the Supreme Court weighs the impact of these laws on female sports and equal protection.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Read the full article here