West Virginia v. B.P.J. by Jackson

146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. by Jackson

United States Supreme Court
146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026)

  • Written by Angela Patrick, JD
West Virginia v. B.P.J. by Jackson

Facts

In 2020, Idaho (defendant) enacted a law prohibiting students whose “biological sex” was male from playing on female school sports teams. In 2021, West Virginia (defendant) enacted a similar law. B.P.J. (plaintiff) was a West Virginia student who was classified male at birth but identified as female from an early age. By sixth grade, B.P.J. was taking puberty blockers and hormones. B.P.J. wanted to join her middle school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams, but the state law made her joinder illegal. B.P.J., through her mother, sued, alleging that the law violated (1) Title IX, because it unreasonably excluded students from a school activity on the basis of sex; and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, because the total exclusion of all biological males was overbroad and equal treatment required some process for exceptions, such as for individuals who had taken puberty blockers and hormones. The state asserted the law was valid because excluding “biological males” from female sports teams served the state’s interests in promoting safety and competitive fairness for all female athletes. The district court dismissed the claims, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the law violated Title IX and remanded the equal-protection claim for further fact-finding. Separately, Lindsay Hecox (plaintiff) was an Idaho college student who was classified male at birth but identified as female and took female hormones. Hecox wanted to participate on women’s college sports teams, but Idaho law prohibited her from doing so. Hecox sued Idaho officials (defendants), alleging an equal-protection violation. The district court preliminarily enjoined the law, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)

Concurrence (Gorsuch, J.)

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Jackson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 964,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,006 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Key Terms

  • Intermediate ScrutinyAlso known as heightened scrutiny, under constitutional jurisprudence, a level of scrutiny between rational basis and strict scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny is applied to determine whether a quasi-suspect classification, such as gender or legitimacy, is substantially related to the accomplishment of an important governmental purpose. Intermediate scrutiny is also applied to determine whether content-neutral restrictions of speech comply with the First Amendment.
  • Rational-Basis ReviewThe level of scrutiny generally applied to legislation that does not target suspect classifications or impede fundamental rights, which requires that a law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
  • Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection ClauseProvides that no state shall deny to any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits state and local governments from treating individuals or classes of individuals differently under similar circumstances without sufficient justification.
  • Title IXA federal law enacted in 1972 that states “[N]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . .”
  • Sex StereotypingA type of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., based on an employee’s non-conformance with traditional gender roles.
  • Heightened ScrutinyUnder constitutional jurisprudence, a level of scrutiny between rational-basis and strict that is applied to determine whether a quasi-suspect classification, such as gender or legitimacy, is substantially related to the accomplishment of an important governmental purpose. Also known as intermediate scrutiny.
  • Gender IdentityThe gender with which a person deeply and consistently identifies, which may or may not match that person’s biological sex.
  • Gender DysphoriaA psychological disorder in which a person experiences potentially severe discomfort or distress due to an incongruence between the person’s biological sex and gender identity.
  • CisgenderThe matching of gender identity and biological sex in an individual. Cisgender is the opposite of transgender.
  • Gender BiasPreferential or prejudicial treatment based on gender.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial