Oy vey! Is this the best we can do? This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the Little vs. Hecox case and this afternoon, they will hear arguments in the West Virginia vs. BPJ case. Both cases concern Title IX and Equal Protection of the Law regarding transgender athletes. Some of might be excused for believing some Justices don’t have common sense or understand the law.

I listened to both hours of the Little vs. Hecox arguments. The basic facts in the Hecox case are laid out here on the Oyez.org site. The germane part is:

May a state, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, categorically require sports participants to compete based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity?

The common sense answer is “Duh”. The Supreme Court Justices and the brilliant legal minds seemed to struggle. The were all over Hell’s Half Acre, got lost and cannibalized each other.

For instance, remember when Senator Marsha Blackburn asked then nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson if she could define a woman which let us to this Great Moment in American History:

How exactly does Ketanji Brown-Jackson plan to rule on if men can play women's sports when she doesn't even know what a woman is??pic.twitter.com/4q9WC4qIQn

— CJ Pearson (@Cjpearson) January 13, 2026

Cis-bloody-freaking-gender! Jesus take the wheel.

After the Oral Arguments, the Washington Post uploaded this piece, “Supreme Court appears skeptical of arguments against bans of trans athletes”:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of arguments Tuesday against state bans on transgender athletes playing on women’s sports teams and whether such laws violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

Several justices focused on scientific uncertainty about whether it’s fair and safe to allow transgender women to compete on such teams. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked why the court should “constitutionalize” a right for transgender women in sports when the science is still debated.

“Why would we get involved at this point?” Kavanaugh asked.

Twenty-nine states have banned transgender student-athletes from competing on women’s or girls’ sports teams. Supporters of the bans say they are necessary to ensure fairness and safety because of inherent physical differences between males and females. Opponents say the laws discriminate against trans people and should be struck down.

The cases involving student-athletes from West Virginia and Idaho are the latest in which the court will consider LGBTQ rights, particularly those of transgender people. In recent years, trans issues have become a cultural and political flash point, and sports competitions that include trans women have sparked public debate about fairness at all levels of competition.

The Supreme Court is considering whether the state bans in Idaho and West Virginia violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. It’s also weighing whether West Virginia’s ban violates Title IX, a civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Don’t you think this argument presents a problem? Gays and Lesbians argue that sexual attraction, like race, is immutable. The trans rights crowd argue that gender is mutable. If that were true, you would just change your gender and your attraction to the corresponding gender.

Listening now to the Supreme Court arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Oh wait, they’re arguing about whether a 240 lb. guy can knock out a 90 lb. high school girl on the soccer field and then shower with her later.

We’ve advanced since Medieval times. pic.twitter.com/QyPM3p8voR

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 13, 2026

Or, how about this one from the 2024 Paris Olympics:

Do members of the Supreme Court live in the same world the rest of us do? Or, do they have their servants do everything for them while they read law books and breathe rarefied air?

Obviously, they believe they are a different species than we poor peasants are. Sara Miller-Woods has an idea that I can get behind:

This whole “there’s no physical difference between boys and girls if you take out testosterone” notion must be coming from people who never took a dodgeball to the face in grade school.

I feel like dodgeball would humble a lot of you.

— Sara Miller-Woods (@Millerita) January 13, 2026

Yee haw! Supreme Court Dodgeball!

Finally, from The New York Times:

During more than three hours of lively discussion, the justices grappled with concerns about fairness, scientific uncertainty and discrimination and seemed divided along ideological lines.

The three liberal justices, appearing to recognize the likely outcome, suggested through their questions that even if the laws are constitutional in most cases, perhaps the two transgender athletes at the heart of Tuesday’s arguments should be able to pursue their challenges.

Allowing their cases to be reviewed again by a lower court, the justices suggested, would give the athletes a chance to try to show that they themselves do not possess unfair competitive advantages even if some transgender girls do.

The conservative justices emphasized that federal law has long allowed separate sports teams for boys and girls to ensure fair competition and raised concerns about undermining the goals of Title IX, the civil rights statute that has fueled participation in women’s sports.

Don’t hold your breath. I will be months before we get an answer.

Featured Image: Fred Schilling/Wikimedia Commons.org/Public Domain