Justice Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench on June 30, 2026 — a step justices reserve for cases where they want the disagreement on the public record, not just in print. Her summary of what the majority had just done: “the facts do not matter, even though the consequences are serious.” She was describing a ruling that let states ban transgender girls from school sports teams without ever resolving the central factual dispute the case turned on.

Two Cases, One Ruling

Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. were argued together and decided together, both testing whether state laws barring transgender girls from girls’ and women’s school sports teams violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The plaintiffs were teenage athletes — Lindsay Hecox, a college runner, and B.P.J. (identified by initials as a minor), a middle-school student who had been taking puberty blockers and had never gone through male puberty — challenging laws that excluded them from teams matching their gender identity regardless of any individual circumstances.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, holding that under both Title IX and the Constitution, states may “maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females” and “determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.” The ruling applies nationally: any state that wants to categorically exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports now has clear Supreme Court cover to do it.

The Missing Step: Nobody Ever Determined the Facts

Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, didn’t primarily argue that the majority reached the wrong constitutional conclusion in the abstract. She argued the Court skipped a step it doesn’t get to skip. The Equal Protection Clause requires heightened scrutiny of sex-based classifications — that much isn’t seriously disputed by anyone on the Court. Heightened scrutiny requires the government to show its classification is substantially related to an important interest, based on actual evidence, not assumption.

The lower courts in both cases had never resolved a threshold factual question: whether an athlete like B.P.J., who had taken puberty blockers and never experienced endogenous male puberty, was “similarly situated” to her cisgender teammates for purposes of the athletic advantage the states claimed to be protecting against. That’s not a philosophical question — it’s the kind of fact a trial court establishes through expert testimony and a full record. It hadn’t happened. Sotomayor would have sent the case back down for exactly that fact-finding before letting a blanket, no-exceptions ban stand.

Instead, she wrote, the majority applied something like heightened scrutiny “divorced from this Court’s cases” — invoking the standard’s name without doing the evidentiary work the standard actually requires. The Equal Protection Clause, she argued, “demands much more” in the way of factual justification “when a State deploys a sex classification to achieve legislative aims” than the majority bothered to ask for here.

Sotomayor vs. Barrett, on Barrett’s Own Terms

One detail from the dissent is worth pulling out specifically: Sotomayor turned Justice Barrett’s own prior reasoning against her. Barrett has, in other cases, been a vocal advocate for exactly the kind of rigorous, record-based factual analysis that heightened scrutiny is supposed to require before a court blesses a broad government classification. Sotomayor’s dissent used that same framework — the one Barrett herself has articulated and applied elsewhere — to argue that the majority’s own colleague should have recognized this ruling doesn’t meet the bar it claims to apply. It’s a pointed rhetorical move: not “you’re wrong about the law,” but “you’re not even following your own rules.”

Why “No Exceptions” Is the Real Story

The laws at issue in both cases weren’t narrowly tailored to address specific competitive concerns in specific sports at specific ages. They were categorical bans — no case-by-case review, no consideration of individual medical circumstances like puberty blockers, no distinction between a competitive college athletics context and a middle-school gym class. B.P.J. was in middle school, had not gone through male puberty, and was still excluded by a rule written to apply uniformly regardless of any of that.

That’s precisely the feature Sotomayor’s dissent flags as constitutionally significant. A state genuinely interested in fair competition might tailor eligibility rules to physiological realities — and there’s a real, good-faith debate to have about where those lines belong. A state that bans an entire category of students from an entire category of activity, without regard to any individual fact, is doing something else: enacting identity-based exclusion and calling it athletic fairness. The majority’s ruling doesn’t require states to draw the narrower version. It blesses the broadest one.

Part of a Pattern

This ruling doesn’t stand alone. This Court’s LGBTQ rights record has been openly inconsistent for years — from the textualist reasoning in Bostock that protected LGBTQ employees, to 303 Creative’s carve-out for businesses that want to refuse service, to Skrmetti upholding bans on gender-affirming care for minors. Each case gets decided on its own doctrinal terms, but the trend line across all of them points the same direction: wherever the Court has discretion to rule against transgender Americans specifically, it has, with justifications that shift case to case but outcomes that don’t.

The sports ruling fits that pattern precisely. It isn’t built on a comprehensive factual record showing these categorical bans are the narrowest way to address a real competitive problem. It’s built on the majority’s comfort with letting states decide the question however they want, evidence optional. Sotomayor’s dissent is not an argument that transgender athletes must always be permitted to compete without any restriction — it’s an argument that the Constitution required more homework before nine, or six, unelected people signed off on excluding an entire group of children from school sports nationwide.

Sources