E104 Supreme Court Weighs In on States Limiting Transgender Participation in Girls’ School Sports
Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith PodcastShow Notes
In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith’s Title IX Practice Group Co-Chairs, Sarah Fama and Monica Batanero, to discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion on two cases addressing transgender participation in girls’ school athletics: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. The discussion covers the Court’s holdings, legal reasoning, and implications for schools navigating student participation, safety, and competitive fairness. The episode also explores the impact on California schools, including related Title IX issues, pending litigation, and challenges to California’s existing legal framework.
Show Notes & References
1:28 – Supreme Court rulings in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2026) 609 U.S.
2:25 – Background on B.P.J. and Hecox cases
5:32 – What the Supreme Court decided
6:50 – Reasoning and analysis of the Court
8:00 – Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority: “The term ‘sex’ in the 1972 Title IX statute, the 1974 Javits Amendment, and the 1975 Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.”
9:17 – Safety and competitive fairness
11:56 – Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) 590 U.S. 644 – (Client News Brief 86 – December 2020)
15:12 – Biological females who identify as male in male sports
17:31 – Concurrences and dissents of justices
19:16 – What happens now? The state of the law in California
20:49 – Pending litigation in lower courts
21:28 – United States v. California Interscholastic Federation and California Department of Education, July 9, 2025 – (Client News Brief 31 – July 2025)
21:53 – United States v. Maine Department of Education (No. 1:25-cv-00173)
22:33 – Viability of challenges to U.S.A. v. CIF/CDE; AB 1266 and CIF Bylaws
For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast
Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
More from Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast
When it comes to school and community college district projects, correctly classifying work as “maintenance” or “construction” can make or break your bidding and contracting process. In this episode, Lozano Smith attorneys Arne Sandberg and Andrea Olivarez join host Sloan Simmons to unpack the key distinctions between these two categories, how they impact contract structure and bidding requirements, and what your team needs to know about competitive thresholds and UPCCAA procedures. Whether you’re drafting a contract or preparing to go out to bid, this discussion offers essential guidance to ensure compliance and clarity.
In this episode, host Michelle Cannon engages with Lozano Smith Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Sloan Simmons and Student Practice Group Co-Chair Kyle Raney to discuss the current state of the law in California under Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor. The discussion reviews developments and what is anticipated in the courts through the conclusion of 2026 in relation to these cases and parallel litigation, and covers best practices and policy options for school officials due to the current status of the law.
Public employees and officials have the right to participate in political activity, but important restrictions apply when personal advocacy intersects with public employment and agency resources. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Scott Cross and Gail Zurek to discuss how public employees and officials can distinguish between permissible private political activity and conduct performed in an official capacity. The conversation explores campaign activity during work and personal time, the use of agency facilities and resources, political forums and campaign materials, and the rules governing uniforms, agency logos, and equipment. The discussion also examines how public agencies may provide neutral information about ballot measures without engaging in advocacy, along with restrictions involving campaign solicitations, political benefits, and the Levine Act.
California’s SB 848 introduces significant new requirements for educational agencies related to ensuring the safety of students. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Carolyn Gemma and Brianna Ramos to discuss the background behind these new requirements and what educational agencies need to know as implementation continues. The conversation explores key changes, including new legal obligations regarding employment screening, comprehensive safety plans, mandated reports, and employee trainings. The discussion provides practical insights to help educational agencies understand the law’s various effective dates and take steps to maintain compliance moving forward.
California’s AB 126 introduces significant changes to charter school oversight and authorizer responsibilities. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons connects with Lozano Smith’s Charter Practice Group Co-Chairs, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, to discuss the background behind these reforms and what they mean for charter schools and authorizers. The conversation explores key changes, including expanded oversight requirements, enhanced fiscal monitoring obligations, fraud reporting responsibilities, and further clarifications to California’s Charter Schools Act. The discussion provides practical insights to help authorizers prepare through policy updates, strengthened protocols, and improved documentation practices.