Civil and Human Rights

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., cases in which the Court considered whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit all transgender women and girls from joining women’s and girls’ sports teams are constitutional, Constitutional Accountability Center Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans issued the following reaction:

The Fourteenth Amendment’s universal promise of equality was designed to end prejudicial exclusions of marginalized persons, ensuring equal citizenship stature for all.  Today, the Roberts Court’s conservative supermajority hollows out this bedrock promise, upholding discriminatory laws that exclude transgender women and girls from participation in sport teams and clubs without the hard look the Constitution requires.  Rather than follow the Supreme Court’s precedents, the majority substitutes a watered-down form of judicial scrutiny, deferring to the state and permitting it to exclude from participation in sports all transgender women and girls, even those who possess no biological advantage.

Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Joshua Blecher-Cohen continued:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As the CAC amicus brief explained, the history of the Amendment underscores its breadth and application to “any person.” In upholding laws in West Virginia and Idaho that exclude transgender women and girls like B.P.J. and Lindsay Hecox from participating in school sports, the Court today denies them that guarantee of equal protection.

Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Praveen Fernandes also noted:

The Roberts Court’s conservative supermajority made unnecessary factual findings that have not been properly litigated in the lower courts. As Justice Sotomayor’s dissent points out, this was flatly wrong, and it is an error that comes with real harms for transgender women and girls.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even though they refuse...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution permits the Department of Labor to use administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties on employers who violate...