National
Reporters hammer Carney on marriage, Biden’s remarks
W.H. spox has no updates, says Duncan was speaking his own views
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary faced a litany of questions Monday on same-sex marriage following favorable remarks on the issue that Vice President Joe Biden gave earlier in the week.
The preponderance of the daily news briefing consisted of inquiries attempting to square President Obama’s ongoing evolution with the remarks on same-sex marriage from Biden, who said Sunday he’s “absolutely comfortable” with married gay couples having the same rights as straight couples.
Carney referred to clarification immediately issued Sunday from the vice president’s office saying Biden’s views were in the line with the president — despite his remarks earlier in the day on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I have no update on the president’s personal views,” Carney said. “What the vice president said yesterday was to make the same point that the president has made previously. Committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protection enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights.”
Carney said Biden’s comments stirred “a little bit of an overreaction” and said clarification went out from the vice president’s office because reporters sent inquiries and media outlets had the No. 2 in the administration had endorsed same-sex marriage.
As he’s done in the past, Carney said he has no updates on Obama’s marriage evolution; listed the president’s LGBT accomplishments, including repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; and reiterated the Obama opposes discriminatory efforts against gay couples.
While Biden remarks made up the lion’s share of the questions. Carney also faced questions on Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s endorsement of same-sex marriage earlier in the day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Carney said the Cabinet official was offering his personal views on the matter.
“Secretary Duncan was asked a question on his personal views on an issue, and he offered them,” Carney said. “Obviously, this is an issue that many people have a view on, and we respect the right of all people to have a personal opinion.”
Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney dodged when asked whether he remembers the vice president speaking so favorably as he did in Sunday on the issue of same-sex marriage. Before becoming White House press secretary, Carney was Biden’s communications director for the first two years of the Obama administration.
“I think I will simply point you to what the vice president said yesterday, and the vice president supports this president’s policies in support for LGBT rights,” Carney said.
Carney gave a similar dodge when pressed when asked whether Biden’s remarks represent a sign of progress for the administration on the marriage evolution.
“I would just point you to what the vice president said,” Carney said.
On Sunday, Biden said he’s “absolutely comfortable” with the idea of married gay couples having the “same exact rights” as straight couples, which was reported by many media outlets and bloggers as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Biden’s office has said his comments weren’t anything new and the vice president is evolving on the issue like President Obama.
The president himself has yet to articulate support for same-sex marriage. In October 2010, Obama said in response to a question from AMERICAblog’s Joe Sudbay that he could evolve to support marriage equality, but hasn’t yet made any announcement.
During the news briefing, ABC News’ Jake Tapper pointed to comments that Obama has made — most recently in Rolling Stone Magazine — saying he doesn’t want to “make news” on his position on same-sex marriage. Tapper said the comment suggests Obama actually supports marriage equality, but doesn’t want to express that view.
In response, Carney said Tapper was making his own characterization of the president’s views on marriage.
“I think when people have asked him that and he has no update to give them or no change in his views to put forward that he’s simply saying that, I have nothing new for you on that; his position is what it was,” Carney said.
Carney said Obama’s record is “considerable and unparalleled” and proceeded to mention some LGBT accomplishments, but Tapper said he doesn’t “want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.” Carney responded the president’s accomplishments are serious work.
“We’re talking — talking points to you; serious, substantial rights to others, OK?” Carney said. “Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a serious matter. The efforts that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens are a serious matter.”
In the end, Tapper accused of the administration of being “cynical” by withholding Obama’s support for same-sex marriage presumably until after Election Day.
“And if that is the likely future of the president and this position, given that you don’t have any news to drop on it, or probably his mind has been made up, why not just come out and say it and let voters decide?” Tapper said. “It seems — it seems cynical to hide this until after the election.”
Other noteworthy inquiries why the president opposes bans on same-sex marriage, but doesn’t support same-sex itself. Another reporter from NPR asked whether marriage is a civil liberty, prompting Carney to defer the question to a “civil libertarian.”
The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler asked whether Obama wants the Democratic Party platform to conform to his views on marriage as LGBT advocates have been pushing for an inclusion of same-sex marriage in the document. Carney deferred the inquiry to the Democratic National Committee.
A transcript of the exchange between Carney and marriage questions follows:
Q: …This morning, the Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, put himself on record in favor of gay marriage. Yesterday, the vice president indicated something along the same lines. Does this box the President in ahead of the election? Have his views changed at all on this subject?
Jay Carney: Well, I have no update on the president’s personal views. What the vice president said yesterday was to make the same point that the president has made previously, that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to roll back those rights. That’s why this administration opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and supports legislation to repeal it. The administration also has stopped defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges.
Secretary Duncan was asked a question about his personal views on an issue and he offered them. And obviously this is an issue that many people have a view on and we respect the right of all people to have an opinion — a personal opinion.
Q: If asked at this point a similar question for his personal view, would the president give it?
Carney: I think the President is the right person to describe his own personal views. He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving, and I don’t have an update for you on that.
…
Q: Jay, the president has raised millions of dollars from LGBT donors, many of whom say that they believe in a second term the President will come out in support of gay marriage. So doesn’t he owe them — or owe voters in general — his direct response and just stop dancing around the issue and telling voters will he or won’t he support gay marriage in a second term?
Carney: The president was asked this and said that his views on — his personal views on this were evolving. The president does have, as you noted, significant support in the LGBT community, and that’s because of his unparalleled record in support of LGBT rights. That includes the fight to repeal successfully “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It includes signing hate crimes legislation that includes LGBT persons. It includes ending a legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. It includes ensuring hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, and I could go on. His record on the LGBT rights is simply unparalleled, and he will continue to fight for those rights going forward.
Q: Jay, on June 23, he told an LGBT audience, “Everybody deserves to be able to live and love as they see fit. I don’t have to tell the people in this room we’ve got a ways to go in the struggle.” What is he referring to if not gay marriage?
Carney: Well, I think you have heard him say and those in the administration like myself who speak for him that he strongly opposes efforts to restrict rights, to repeal rights for same-sex couples. He has made his opposition to those efforts in various states known and will continue to do so.
I think it’s a statement of obvious fact that full enjoyment of rights by LGBT citizens has not been achieved uniformly across the country. And that’s why he has taken a stand on — in opposition to efforts in some states to deny those rights and discriminate against LGBT citizens.
Q: So can you explain then clearly what — how Vice President Biden, who said, there is a consensus building toward gay marriage in this nation, and then came out yesterday saying that he is absolutely comfortable with men marrying men and women marrying women having equal rights, is not an endorsement of gay marriage?
Carney: Well, I think the Vice President expressed his personal views. He also said he was evolving on the issue.
Q: He did not say that, Jay.
Carney: He did.
Q: No. His spokesperson said that afterwards.
Carney: Let me just be clear, though. The vice president — what he said about the protection of rights of citizens is completely consistent with the president’s position on this issue, and his description of the way the country has moved on this issue I think is wholly accurate. I think we all have seen the data that describes an evolution of views across the country on these issues. So I don’t think there’s anything surprising about him saying that.
Q: You’re trying to have it both ways before an election.
Carney: No. Look, this President has been extremely aggressive in supporting LGBT rights. He fought against those who oppose the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and achieved that in this administration. There are those who want to bring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” back. He very robustly fights against efforts to restrict or deny rights to LGBT citizens and discriminate against them, and he’ll continue to do so.
And again, you didn’t want to hear it, but there’s a long, long list of the actions that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens in this country. And that’s a record that the President is very proud of.
…
Q: Okay. And back to the same-sex marriage issue. I think one of the issues is that when asked about the president’s position, the president no longer said he is evolving on the issue. He says, I don’t have any news to make on that. That’s what Stephanie Cutter, a few minutes ago on cable said — I don’t have any news for you. The suggestion is that there is news there and you guys are just waiting for the proper time to drop it, likely after November.
Carney: I think that’s your characterization, Jake.
Q: I think that’s what it means —
Carney: I think the president said that he was evolving, and he had — I think when people have asked him that and he has no update to give them or no change in his views to put forward, that he’s simply saying that I have nothing new for you on that. His position is what it was. And that’s with regards to his personal views.
What I think needs to be remembered here is what he has done in office in support of LGBT rights. And that record is extensive and considerable and unparalleled. And he’ll continue to fight for those rights as long as he’s in office.
Q: Positing that the president has done more for LGBT individuals than any other President in history — so you don’t need to say that again — the question is —
Carney: But I will.
Q: Just for this question. When you get to Norah, whatever you want. But the question is, I think there are very few people who think that the president is not going to, after November, whether he’s reelected or not, come out in favor of same-sex marriage. I think there are very few people on the president’s campaign who doubt that; very few people who support the president, very few people who oppose the president who have any doubt that that is what is going to likely happen. And if that is the likely future of the president and this position, given that you don’t have any news to drop on it where probably his mind has been made up, why not just come out and say it and let voters decide? It seems cynical to hide this until after the election.
Carney: Jake, I think the president’s position is well known. He’s spoken to this. It’s gotten a great deal of coverage. I don’t have an update to provide you on the President’s position. It is what it was. I’m sorry you don’t want to hear about the president’s support for LGBT rights because it’s considerable.
Q: It’s not that I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.
Carney: I think the — talking points to you; serious substantial rights to others. Okay? “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t tTell” is a serious matter. The efforts that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens are serious matters.
Q: I’m not belittling that, Jay. We’re talking about same-sex marriage.
Carney: I think that’s the context of this discussion. I just don’t have anything more to give to you on the issue of the President’s views.
Q: Because he’s still evolving. Not because you don’t have news for me, it’s because he’s still evolving.
Carney: It is as it was, yes.
Norah.
Q: Why does the president oppose same-sex marriage?
Carney: I would just point you to what the president has said in the past, both during his campaign for President in 2008 and in answer to a question at the end of 2010. I really don’t have an update for you, Norah.
Q: Is the President comfortable with the fact of men marrying men and women marrying women?
Carney: The president is comfortable with same-sex couples, as the president — the vice president said, being entitled to the same rights and the civil rights and civil liberties as other Americans. And that’s why he has fought for those equal rights and why he’s opposed efforts to discriminate against LGBT citizens and to take away rights that have been established by law.
Q: Biden — the vice president appears to have evolved on the issue, but the president is still evolving — is that a fair characterization?
Carney: I will leave it to individuals to describe their own personal views. What I can explain to you is what the president’s positions are on issues, the actions he has taken at a policy level on behalf of LGBT Americans, and his commitment to continue to take actions on their behalf to protect and defend their rights.
Q: Let me ask you this. You have a number of Democratic governors throughout this country — Governor O’Malley, Governor Cuomo, Governor Malloy, to name a view, now the vice president, who all support same-sex marriage. Why doesn’t President Obama support same-sex marriage?
Carney: I just don’t have an update for you, Norah, on the president’s position on his personal views. I can tell you that he is a absolutely committed supporter of LGBT rights. His record bears that out. It is an unparalleled record of support for LGBT citizens and their rights, and he’s proud of it and he’ll run on it.
And I think that it’s important to remember when we talk about those accomplishments under this administration that they are far more than talking points; they are considerable, serious demonstrations of progress, important progress — progress that others would take away and reverse. This president is committed to not letting that happen.
Q: When you now say the vice president is evolving — he did not say that, as was pointed out, but he used some key words beyond what Norah just quoted. He also said that they are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. Does that mean he supports same-sex marriage?
Carney: I was pointing to this statement that the vice president’s office put out yesterday describing his statements, and I don’t have any elaboration on that. I can tell you that what he said is completely consistent in that paragraph with the President’s views that LGBT citizens should enjoy the same rights and that they should not be discriminated against. And efforts to take away those rights are something that this President strongly opposes.
Q: But how come when the president proposes something like the American Jobs Act — you could name anything — and he says — he travels around the country and says, you’re entitled to press members of Congress, tell them, are they for this or are they against it — why can’t you from this podium say whether or not the President supports or opposes same-sex marriage?
Carney: Well, I can tell you that the president has spoken about this, and that his views have not changed and I have no update to give you on them.
…
Q: Why did the administration feel like they had to put out a statement clarifying what the vice president said?
Carney: Well, I don’t know that the — the office of the vice president put out a statement. I think that there was a lot of interest generated by the comments and the office of the vice president put out a statement to make it clear what the vice president was saying.
But again, I think that there is a little bit of an overreaction here. The Vice President supports and made clear he supports the President’s policies when it comes to protecting the rights of LGBT citizens, and he also has his own personal views about the issue, as does the President, as do most people. So the President’s record on LGBT rights is extensive, and he is committed to working to move forward on that issue.
Q: Is it fair to say that publicly the president and the vice president disagree on gay marriage?
Carney: No, I don’t think that’s what the vice president said yesterday. But again, I don’t think that’s the point. The president and the vice president and everyone in this administration support the initiatives that this president has taken to protect and defend the rights of all Americans, including LGBT Americans.
Q: When it came to the issue of marriage before, there was a time when the president was somebody who believed in deferring it to the states. Does he still feel that way?
Carney: Well, the president believes that the states are deciding this issue, and he has made clear —
Q: — clearly a state issue, not a federal issue?
Carney: Well, I think that we certainly oppose efforts to take away rights at a federal level, which some politicians suppose — a constitutional amendment to deny rights to LGBT Americans across the country — we oppose that. The president opposes that. States have taken action on this issue, and the President believes that when the process works that it’s a positive thing. He also opposes efforts in states to repeal rights or deny rights to LGBT citizens that have already been established.
Q: So what would that put him — where would the president be then on the amendment in North Carolina that would ban gay marriage?
Carney: The president, through the campaign — but the same person opposes efforts to deny the rights of citizens in any state where those rights have been established.
Q: So he opposes — so help me out there. He opposes bans on gay marriage but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?
Carney: The record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. That is a position he has taken that precedes his taking a position in North Carolina. It’s a position he’s taken in other states where this has been an issue. Yes, he is opposed to efforts in states to deny rights that have been provided to citizens.
Q: You understand why there is so much confusion because you’re saying he opposes bans on gay marriage but he’s not yet for gay marriage. I mean, that’s —
Carney: He believes that the states are — marriage is a state issue, and the states have the right to take action on it. What he opposes is efforts to repeal rights that have been granted to LGBT citizens. He thinks that’s discriminatory and wrong.
…
Q: There’s going to be an effort this summer to have support for gay marriage as part of the Democratic platform. Does the president believe it’s important that the platform reflects his views?
Carney: Well, on the issue of the platform, which hasn’t been developed yet, I would refer you to the DNC.
Q: My question was whether the president — this is a question for the president — whether the President thinks that the platform just kind of doesn’t matter, which some people say, or whether it really is a statement of his views whatever those may be?
Carney: I think it’s a statement of the party’s view and has long been that. But I don’t have — I haven’t had that discussion with him. But I think a platform is a statement of a party’s views. It is called a Democratic or Republican Party platform. But for questions about the development of that platform I’d refer you to the DNC.
Q: He is the head of his party.
Carney: Again, I don’t have a different answer for you, Laura. It’s a platform that hasn’t been developed. I would point you to the DNC for questions about it.
Q: Just to get clear on your criteria, you said that you oppose state efforts to take away rights. In North Carolina gays can’t marry now, so what is the reason to oppose North Carolina?
Carney: The referendum would, as I understand it, restrict and deny rights to LGBT Americans. And the president —
Q: That they currently have in North Carolina?
Carney: That’s my understanding, yes.
Q: Okay. My other question is, is marriage a civil liberty?
Carney: You have to ask civil libertarians or lawyers.
Q: Well, in the White House view, is marriage a civil liberty?
Carney: We believe that — the president believes strongly that LGBT Americans should enjoy the same legal rights, and he opposes efforts to deny rights to LGBT American and discriminate against them.
Q: Okay. Just another question. It’s pretty rare when somebody runs for office saying, in effect, I’m getting ready to change my mind. And you’ve really savaged Mitt Romney for changing his mind, and I’m wondering if you don’t run some risk of looking kind of too clever by half here.
Carney: Look, I don’t have an update for you on the president’s personal views. He described them in response to a question. This has gotten a great deal of coverage in the past. That’s the answer he has and I don’t have a new answer for you.
Q: But what would you say is the definition of “evolving”? You’ve said it so many times, it has to mean something specific.
Carney: The president said that his views on this are evolving. I think —
Q: Is he getting ready to change?
Carney: Not necessarily. I think he just said they were evolving. And that’s at a personal level. His views on LGBT rights are crystal-clear and this administration has taken actions that are unparalleled to support those rights. And he’ll continue to take those actions because he thinks that’s the right thing to do.
April.
Q: How could his views be crystal-clear if everybody in this room is needing to ask you questions?
Carney: Chris, I think everybody in this room is reacting in the way that folks often do to one story that takes off and then they run down the field and chase it. They’re reacting to comments on a Sunday show. Nothing has changed in the President’s firm commitment to LGBT rights and nothing’s changed and I have no new information —
Q: — position by the White House.
Carney: It’s the same position. It’s not the position of the White House. The President’s position is —
Q: Then why did you guys send out statements to clarify?
Carney: Because the vice president’s statements were being misinterpreted by some, so he — so there was an effort to clarify it by the office of the vice president.
Q: Jay, what do you think the word “evolving” means?
Carney: But that’s where the president is, okay.
Q: Is he unevolved?
Carney: April.
Q: That means changing.
Q: Okay, now I have the ball, let me run with it.
Carney: Policy positions haven’t changed, Jake. And I can remind you that his support for LGBT rights is unprecedented and compares favorably to anyone else out there in the political arena who’s advocating for these rights. And he’ll continue to support them.
April.
Q: All right, now I’m going to take the ball and run down the field with it real quick. And I want you to dissect the evolution.
Carney: No, I’m not going to, April. I’m sorry, I don’t have anything new for you.
Q: No, no, no, no. Okay, you’re not going to, but can you at least say yea or nay when I kind of try to — (laughter) — here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. Before we heard that it was — he was having a hard time marrying issues of his faith and rights. Is that the evolution? Is that where the evolution issue is a holdup?
Carney: The next time the president has a news conference, if you want to ask him that you’re certainly welcome to. I do not have an update for you on the president’s personal views.
Q: Jay, did the president know before yesterday, did the president know that the vice president was comfortable with men marrying men? Is this something they’ve discussed?
Carney: I don’t have a readout for you of conversations they’ve had on this issue.
Q: Is it something they’ve discussed?
Carney: Again, I don’t have a readout for you of private conversations that they’ve had.
…
Q: Thanks, Jay. Is it still accurate to say, then, that President Obama is opposed to gay marriage?
Carney: I would simply say that his views are evolving, which is what he said. And I don’t have an update for you on that issue.
Amy.
Q: Just to clarify, were you saying that the Vice President’s comments were his personal views? Were you looping it together with Arne Duncan’s views?
Carney: The Vice President spoke very clearly about the President’s policies, and they’re entirely consistent with the policies that this President has supported. He also — he talked about evolution in this country and other issues, and those were personal views. I will simply refer you to the statement that the office of the vice president put out.
…
Q: …As someone who’s worked with the vice president before, do you remember him ever speaking so favorably on the issue of same-sex marriage?
Carney: I think I will simply point you to what the vice president said yesterday. The vice president supports this president’s policies in support for LGBT rights.
Q: But is this a sign of progress?
Carney: I would just point you to what the vice president said.
…
Watch the White House briefing its entirety here (video courtesy White House YouTube page)
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky 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,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — 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’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s 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 boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
U.S. Supreme Court
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
PFLAG staffer Diego Sanchez competed at University of Georgia in 1970s
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday addressing the legality of banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports under the 14th Amendment.
Though the two cases differ slightly in their fact patterns, they ultimately pose the same constitutional question: whether laws that limit participation in women’s sports to only cisgender women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In both cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — trans girls filed lawsuits against their respective states, Idaho and West Virginia, arguing that the bans violate their right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to different standards than cisgender girls.
Lindsay Hecox, now 24, filed her lawsuit in 2020 while attending Boise State University. That same year, Idaho enacted the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which barred trans women from participating in any sport in public schools, from kindergarten through college. Although Hecox underwent hormone therapy that significantly lowered her testosterone levels, she was still excluded under the law when she attempted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams.
The second case centers on B.P.J., a 15-year-old trans girl who has identified as female since third grade and has been on puberty blockers since the onset of puberty. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires sports teams to be designated by “biological sex” rather than gender identity. B.P.J.’s mother filed suit on her behalf after her daughter was barred from participating on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.
A key distinction between the two cases is that attorneys for B.P.J. have argued that because puberty blockers were part of her development, her body is more aligned with that of a cisgender girl than a cisgender boy. Despite these differences, both cases raise the same constitutional issue: whether it is lawful to bar someone from participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth.
The Washington Blade spoke with PFLAG Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez.
Sanchez is a trans elder with firsthand experience as a college athlete at the University of Georgia and later became the first openly trans legislative staff member on Capitol Hill.
His dual experience — as a former athlete and a longtime policy expert deeply familiar with constitutional law — gives him a unique perspective on the questions now before the Supreme Court. Sanchez will also be one of the featured speakers at a rally on the steps of the court as the justices hear arguments.
When asked how attitudes toward trans athletes differ from when he competed at the University of Georgia from 1976-1980 to today — when 27 states have passed laws restricting trans participation in sports — Sanchez said the contrast is stark.
“I had the good experience of being supported by my teammates and my coach,” Sanchez said. “The thing that’s so different today is that these [trans] kids are able to go home and get kisses and hugs from their parents, being lauded in the stands by their families, and then being told that who they are doesn’t necessarily fit with who they’re allowed to be in their expression at the moment, and that to me, seems a terrible injustice.”
Sanchez emphasized that sports offer lessons that extend far beyond competition.
“When you’re an athlete, you learn an awful lot of things about life,” he said. “You learn about leadership, but you also learn that your best effort becomes part of a team effort … how you feel as an individual contributor is affected by what ends up being part of how you live your life as an adult.”
After his time as an athlete, Sanchez began working in government, eventually serving as senior policy advisor to then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) until Frank’s retirement in 2013. Sanchez said that one of the most important aspects of his role was simply being visible as a trans person in spaces where many lawmakers had never knowingly met one before.
“My job was to make sure that no one, no legislator, could say that they had never met a trans person,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez also addressed the broader implications the Supreme Court’s decision could have on how gender is treated within institutional systems.
“I don’t think it affects how people perceive their own gender or express their own gender, but I do think that it could create barriers if it doesn’t welcome the way that community and society actually are,” he said. “The most important thing for people to know … is to remember that every person is an individual, and that the right to contribute to society should be something that is supported by the government, not hindered.”
He added that the court’s role must be understood within the framework of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
“The risk, of course, here is always remembering that we have three branches of government, so that this action by the judiciary branch may or may not have implications on whether or how things can be perceived or executed at other branches,” Sanchez said. “I would hope that our government is interested in letting the future generations and current generations be the best that they can be as well.”
“Do people get to live their lives as they are, or is the government an obstruction or a support?”
When asked what message he would share with young trans athletes watching the Supreme Court take up these cases, Sanchez said community support remains critical, regardless of how the justices rule.
“Make sure that the environment that you put yourself in is something that honors who you know you are and supports you becoming the best person you can be, and that anything that takes away from that is purely dissonance,” he said.
“What we do with dissonance is what distinguishes us as whether we excel or doubt.”
That same sense of community, Sanchez said, is what rallies — like the one planned outside the Supreme Court — are meant to reinforce, even as decisions are made inside the building.
“Rallies, including tomorrow’s, are about people knowing they’re not alone, and hearing from other people who support who they are,” he said. “There is support across the country … I wish that I had had someone my age now that I could have looked to, but I am the role model, but I didn’t have any.”
Looking ahead to the possibility that the court could uphold bans on trans athletes, Sanchez said the immediate challenge will be ensuring that families and communities continue to affirm trans youth amid legal uncertainty.
“Having the endorsement of being supported who you are, it helps you so much,” he said. “You cannot put the issue of rights back into the genie’s bottle once people experience what freedom and welcoming is.”
For Sanchez, whose life has spanned decades of change in both sports and government, the cases before the Supreme Court represent a pivotal moment — not just legally, but culturally.
“Living your life, for me, does not require bravery,” he said. “It’s just taking one step and then another.”
Layoffs and confusion at Pride Center of Maryland after federal grants cut, reinstated
Comings & Goings
D.C.’s annual MLK Peace Walk and Parade set for Jan. 19
Love board games and looking for love?
Calendar: January 16-22
Ford’s ‘First Look’ festival showcases three new productions
Mid-Atlantic Leather kicks off this week
Stress-free lease renewals during winter months
PHOTOS: ‘ICE Out For Good’ Sunday protests
