Female Athletes, GOP AGs Defend Women’s Sports At SCOTUS

A coalition of female athletes and Republican attorneys general rallied to defend the sanctity of women’s sports in Washington, D.C., on Monday ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue this week.

“While, of course, I’m excited for the opportunity for the case[s] that will be heard tomorrow, truthfully, I’m pissed off … that we’ve reached a point where we seemingly have an entire political party who has diminished and erased our rights as women. That’s exactly what this is. Don’t let them frame it any other way,” said former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines during a press conference hosted by the Republican Attorneys General Association.

The moment came ahead of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which center around laws passed by Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit trans-identifying men from competing in women’s sports. The high court will address the question of whether these statutes violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, or, in West Virginia’s case, Title IX.

During her remarks, Gaines blasted Democrats and other trans-supporting leftists and institutions for “hid[ing] behind words like ‘compassion’ and ’empathy’ and ‘inclusion’” to mask the harm that allowing trans-identifying men to compete in women’s sports has caused female athletes. In no uncertain terms, she said, “What me and what my teammates faced was not inclusive; it was exclusive because we, as women, were excluded from participating, from competing, from calling ourselves champions.”

“We were told — loud and clear — that our rights to safety, our rights to privacy in areas of undressing, our rights to equal opportunity, [that] they didn’t matter. They certainly didn’t matter as much as the boys’ feelings, the man’s feelings, his happiness. We were told that mattered more than our rights,” Gaines said.

The former University of Kentucky swimmer was joined by several female athletes and women’s sports advocates, including former NCAA soccer player Sophia Lorey. The California native discussed how girls from her home state and those “across the nation” are being denied the “same chance” to compete on a “level playing field” that she was afforded as a result of men being permitted to play in female athletics.

“This is the last line of defense for millions of women and girls who[se] leaders failed them. Now, the Supreme Court will decide something fundamental: whether states have the authority to protect women and girls based on reality,” said Lorey. “And if the court rules correctly, it will put real pressure on states like California by making one thing undeniable: You now have the right to protect women and girls. Now, will you?”

The young women were joined by eight Republican attorneys general, including Idaho’s Raúl Labrador and West Virginia’s John McCuskey.

Regarding the cases before SCOTUS, McCuskey said he and his team “believe we’re right on the facts; we know we’re right on the Constitution, and we know we’re right on the law.” “But most importantly,” he added, “we’re right on common sense.“

“These laws make sense, they protect our women and girls, and we are all very proud to stand here to defend this very, very important issue,” McCuskey added.

Labrador echoed similar sentiments and reaffirmed Idaho’s commitment to the gains women made in achieving “equal opportunities and athletic opportunities.”

“I’m just proud that the state of Idaho is here, with the state of West Virginia and all of these Republican AGs and all these different people that are supporting common sense legislation. And we hope that the Supreme Court can see it our way,” Labrador said.

More than 20 state attorneys general have signed onto briefs supporting Idaho and West Virginia in their respective cases before SCOTUS.

The justices’ consideration of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. comes less than a year after the Supreme Court issued its U.S. v. Skrmetti decision. In that 6-3 ruling, the court upheld the constitutionality of a Tennessee law prohibiting trans-related procedures from being administered to minors.

“Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us … but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority.

[READ:[READ:Upcoming ‘Trans’ Athletes Cases Give SCOTUS The Chance To Fix What Its U.S. V. Skrmetti Decision Didn’t]

Oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. are expected to begin at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood