Transgender West Virginia Teen Challenges Athletic Ban at Supreme Court
WASHINGTON 鈥� Attorneys representing a 15-year-old West Virginia transgender girl, Becky Pepper-Jackson, and her mother Heather Jackson today to the Supreme Court of the United States in their challenge to a 2021 West Virginia law barring Pepper-Jackson from participating on girl鈥檚 athletic teams. Becky and her mother are represented in West Virginia v. B.P.J by the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of West Virginia, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP.
鈥淚 play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do鈥搕o make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,鈥� said Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, of West Virginia. 鈥淎nd all I鈥檝e ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. Instead, I鈥檝e had my rights and my life debated by politicians who鈥檝e never even met me but want to stop me from playing sports with my friends. I know this case isn鈥檛 just about me, or even just about sports. It鈥檚 just one part of a plan to push transgender people like me out of public life entirely. I鈥檓 proud to stand up alongside my mom for what I believe and who I am and I want other transgender kids to know they aren鈥檛 alone.鈥�
鈥淚鈥檝e always raised my children to stay true to themselves, no matter what anyone else tells them,鈥� says Heather Jackson, mother of Becky Pepper-Jackson. 鈥�"I'm so proud of Becky and the young woman she's becoming, one who is hardworking, kind, and a team player. My daughter and every transgender kid like her deserves the freedom to be themselves and a future where no one is discriminated against just because of who they are.鈥�
鈥淭his case is fundamentally about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,鈥� said Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the 红杏视频鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淪chool athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia鈥檚 law completely excluded Becky from her school鈥檚 entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boy鈥檚 team鈥搃n contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life鈥搃s really no choice at all. We look forward to defending her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.鈥�
鈥淏ecky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,鈥� said Lambda Legal Counsel, Nonbinary & Trans Rights Project Director, Sasha Buchert. 鈥淚t has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills 鈥� in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory, but harmful to a student鈥檚 self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. In the end, can we not just let the kids play?鈥�
The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear Little v. Hecox, a challenge brought by a transgender student against Idaho鈥檚 2020 ban on transgender athletes and requirements for sex testing. The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Idaho, Legal Voice, and Cooley LLP represent the plaintiffs in this case.
The two cases charge the bans with violating the rights of transgender and cisgender female students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, West Virginia v. B.P.J. argues that the bans violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits.
Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports. Many of these bans allow for of that put all female student-athletes at risk and embolden intrusive challenges to student athletes' sex.
In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, , and faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump similarly targeted for participating in a high school track meet. Under an Arizona ban, a cisgender male student was at his high school because of a clerical error that listed him as female on his original birth certificate.
Many have spoken out against bullying and discrimination against transgender student-athletes, including Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Dawn Staley, Sue Bird, and Brianna Turner, as well as leading organizations fighting for gender equality in athletics including the Women鈥檚 Sports Foundation, the Women鈥檚 National Basketball Player鈥檚 Association, and the National Women鈥檚 Law Center.
These cases are part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
LGBTQ Rights
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Learn More 红杏视频 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseNov 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration To Enforce Discriminatory Passport Policy. Explore Press Release.Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration To Enforce Discriminatory Passport Policy
WASHINGTON鈥揟he Supreme Court of the United States today granted a request from the Trump administration to stay a preliminary injunction in Orr v. Trump, allowing the government to enforce a discriminatory passport policy against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people while the 红杏视频鈥檚 challenge to the policy continues. Jon Davidson, Senior Counsel for the 红杏视频鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project, said 鈥淭his is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights. Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.鈥� 鈥淭his decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,鈥� said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts. 鈥淭he Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts.鈥� The 红杏视频 and its nationwide affiliate network have helped transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people around the country secure accurate passports since the preliminary injunction was put in place. Now that the policy will be enforced, anyone who applies for a new, corrected, or replacement passport or for a passport renewal is at risk of having their passport issued bearing the sex they were assigned at birth. We will work to update those at risk of being impacted by today鈥檚 order from the Court as we learn more from the State Department. On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order attempting to mandate discrimination against transgender people across the federal government and government programs. This included a directive to the Departments of State and Homeland Security 鈥渢o require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards鈥� reflect a person鈥檚 sex 鈥渁t conception.鈥� Within 48 hours, the State Department paused the processing of some passport applications submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people and returned others with a newly-issued passport marked with their sex assigned at birth. Over 214,000 public comments in opposition to the State Department鈥檚 new policy were collected by the 红杏视频 and Advocates for Transgender Equality. In February 2025, Orr v. Trump was filed by the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, and Covington and Burling LLP, on behalf of seven people who had not been able to obtain passports that match who they are because of the State Department鈥檚 new Passport Policy or were likely to be impacted by the new policy upon their next renewal. The complaint was filed in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was subsequently amended to add five additional transgender, nonbinary, and intersex plaintiffs and to seek to represent a class of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex passport holders. All twelve individual plaintiffs were appointed as class representatives. In April, the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs in Orr v. Trump to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity or with an 鈥淴鈥� sex designation while the lawsuit proceeds. In June, the court granted a class certification request and expanded the scope of the preliminary injunction. After the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denied the government鈥檚 request to stay the preliminary injunction, the Trump administration filed a stay request to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Jackson issued a dissent to today鈥檚 order, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. The full order from the Court is available here. -
News & CommentaryOct 2025
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Biometric Bracelets For Prisoners. Explore News & Commentary.Biometric bracelets for prisoners
Invading privacy as well as "barking up the wrong tree" -
Press ReleaseOct 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Journalists Argue Against Puerto Rico's Covid-era 鈥渇ake News鈥� Law In Federal Appeals Court. Explore Press Release.Journalists Argue Against Puerto Rico's COVID-era 鈥淔ake News鈥� Law in Federal Appeals Court
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico 鈥� At a time when the freedom of the press is in growing peril, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments about Puerto Rico鈥檚 鈥渇ake news鈥� law, which was struck down by a federal district judge in 2023 for violating the First Amendment. Two journalists challenged the law, saying it chilled their reporting and could endanger any journalism during an emergency that may reflect poorly on the government. 鈥淚f recent attacks on the freedom of the press have taught us anything, it is that the government cannot be allowed to make themselves the arbiter of public debate,鈥� said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淧rohibiting 鈥榝ake news鈥� during an emergency gives the government far too much power to chill and criminalize reporting that they don鈥檛 like, and it threatens the foundational principle of our Constitution: a free people requires a free press.鈥� The 2020 Puerto Rico law made it a crime to knowingly raise a 鈥渇alse alarm鈥� about impending catastrophes or knowingly convey false information on any topic when doing so results in an imminent risk to safety, health, property; those found in violation of the law could face up to three years in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. 鈥淭his is a law created to try to control speech and eliminate any dissent, under the threat of criminally prosecuting people who say something the government disagrees with,鈥� said Ferm铆n Arraiza-Navas, legal director of the 红杏视频 of Puerto Rico. 鈥淲ith this law, the government of Puerto Rico endangers the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, especially at a time when we know that freedom of expression is being attacked from multiple angles. This is also an attempt to discourage fair and necessary oversight of the government鈥攑recisely during times of emergency. Puerto Rico has plenty of examples showing how, in moments of crisis, the government has failed to provide the public with truthful information, and instead, it has been thanks to journalists and the public that the correct information about these matters has come to light.鈥� Originally filed during the COVID-19 public health crisis, the 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Puerto Rico filed the lawsuit on behalf of two journalists, Sandra Rodr铆guez Cotto and Rafelli Gonz谩lez Cotto, who feared that the laws would be used to punish them for their reporting on public emergencies, especially reporting that reflects negatively on the government. On March 31, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico permanently enjoined the law, holding that it violates the First Amendment because it imposes a content-based restriction on protected speech without adequate justification. The court observed that the statute鈥檚 exceedingly broad sweep risked politicized prosecutions and chilling protected speech on matters of public concern. As the court put it, 鈥淸t]he watchdog function of speech is never more vital than during a large-scale crisis.鈥� For more information about the case, see here. -
Press ReleaseOct 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Dodea Must Return Books To Shelves, Judge Rules. Explore Press Release.DoDEA Must Return Books to Shelves, Judge Rules
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� In a victory for free speech, the Department of Defense (DOD) must stop censoring classroom and library materials pertaining to race and gender in DOD-run schools, a judge ruled today. On behalf of six military families with students enrolled in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Kentucky, and the 红杏视频 of Virginia filed a motion for preliminary injunction in May seeking to declare DoDEA鈥檚 enforcement of executive orders resulting in classroom censorship unconstitutional. DoDEA, whose students lead the United States in math and reading proficiency scores, operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. 鈥淭his is an important victory for students in DoDEA schools and anyone who values full libraries and vibrant classrooms,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he censorship taking place in DoDEA schools as a result of these executive orders was astonishing in its scope and scale, and we couldn鈥檛 be more pleased that the court has vindicated the First Amendment rights of the students this has impacted.鈥� The demand for an injunction was filed on behalf of 12 students and their families, ranging from pre-K to 11th grade, who attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, the plaintiffs鈥� schools have removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the Trump administration has accused of promoting 鈥済ender ideology鈥� or 鈥渄ivisive equity ideology.鈥� Censored items include materials about slavery, Native American history, women鈥檚 history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. The judge recently ordered the full list of 596 censored book titles to be filed publicly, and it can be viewed here. 鈥淲e are pleased to see the court agrees with our clients,鈥� said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the 红杏视频 of Kentucky. 鈥淩emoving books from school libraries just because this administration doesn鈥檛 like the content is censorship, plain and simple. The materials removed are clearly age-appropriate and are only offensive to those who are afraid of a free-thinking population.鈥� The injunction is limited to the five schools attended by plaintiffs, but the message is clear: DoDEA鈥檚 censorship of books and curriculum materials is unconstitutional. 鈥淏y quarantining library books and whitewashing curricula in its civilian schools, the Department of Defense Education Activity violated students鈥� First Amendment rights,鈥� said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the 红杏视频 of Virginia. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling affirms that government can鈥檛 scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn鈥檛 like certain viewpoints on those topics.鈥� The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Kentucky, and the 红杏视频 of Virginia filed suit in April, arguing that DoDEA enforcement of three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 led to widespread violations of students鈥� First Amendment rights. The suit, and the motion for preliminary injunction, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.