Twenty-four states submit an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to prohibit transgender girls from participating in women’s sports

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation

There is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that transgender girls possess a substantial biological advantage in sports.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with attorneys general from 23 other states, filed an amicus brief advocating for the prohibition of transgender girls participating in sports.

The brief specifically requests the Supreme Court to review and overturn an injunction issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall collaborated with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin to draft the amicus brief, with support from attorneys general in 22 other states, including Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The injunction being challenged was issued in September by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous 3-0 decision. This injunction blocked Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a law imposing a blanket ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports, regardless of their transition timeline or use of puberty blockers. The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by two transgender girls and their parents seeking to overturn the ban.

In the court’s decision, Judge Morgan Christen wrote, “[The law] permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities. Transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”

The amicus brief presented several arguments in favor of the ban. One claim was that implementing policies allowing transgender girls to join girls’ sports teams would be costly and logistically difficult for schools—despite evidence showing that many schools nationwide have successfully adopted trans-inclusive policies without significant challenges.

The brief also asserted that sex and gender identity are not equivalent under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, a stance that contradicts legal precedent established in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that protections against sex-based discrimination include transgender individuals due to their gender identity.

Additionally, the attorneys general argued that the Circuit Court’s ruling was legally flawed. They suggested that the decision could be interpreted in ways more favorable to their case and called for a rational-basis review. This review would evaluate whether the plaintiffs’ claims were consistent with constitutional equal protection principles or whether they failed to meet that standard.

It remains uncertain whether these arguments will prevail. The Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear this case. However, the Court has already agreed to consider United States v. Skrmetti, which will address the legality of state bans on gender-affirming care for minors.

Evidence does not support claims that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports. In fact, studies indicate that transitioning, including the use of puberty blockers, can mitigate differences and create a fairer playing field.

Despite this, anti-trans rhetoric continues to shape these legal battles. “Our coalition is determined to preserve the 50 years of work that expanded opportunities and leveled the playing field for girls and women in sports,” Attorney General Marshall stated in a press release.

He added, “But the left continues to pander to a small minority of their base… Parents of daughters are rightfully outraged at the loss of positions on teams and college scholarships. As our multiple briefs to the Supreme Court show, it’s time to return to fairness in opportunity for sports.”