WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives has filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners in the United States Supreme Court case West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Summary of the case:
In 2021, West Virginia passed a law requiring school sports teams to be expressly designated for boys, girls, or co-ed, with the designations based on biological sex. The West Virginia law prohibits boys from joining girls’ teams for “contact sports” or sports based on “competitive skill.” The law has been challenged on Equal Protection Clause and Title IX grounds. While the District Court ruled for West Virginia, the Fourth Circuit reversed on appeal, concluding that the West Virginia statute violated Title IX, and potentially the Equal Protection Clause.
A Supreme Court decision affirming the Fourth Circuit would substantially undermine Congress’s intent in enacting Title IX, frustrating its goal of promoting equal opportunity for female athletes. It could also hamstring Congress’s ability to enact legislation such as H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, which passed the House earlier this year.
Summary of the House’s argument:
The House amicus brief explains Congress’s reasons for passing Title IX, and why sex-separated school athletic teams do not run afoul of either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. The brief advances the House’s interests in ensuring that Title IX is interpreted in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress, and that the Court does not issue a ruling on an important question of constitutional law that would take away Congress’s ability to legislate to protect women’s and girls’ sports.
The brief supports petitioners by arguing that Title IX was designed to ensure that girls and women receive an equal opportunity in educational settings, including athletics. The brief further argues that the sex-specific carveouts in Title IX refer to biological sex, and thus, sex-separated athletic teams, like those contemplated by the West Virginia law, do not violate Title IX. As to the constitutional equal protection issue, the brief argues that West Virginia’s law does not discriminate based on transgender status and that, in any case, transgender status is not a suspect class.
The amicus brief states: “Sports teams have long been divided by biological sex, which reflects the scientific understanding that the different physiologies of men and women require separate teams to ensure fair competition. Thus, when Title IX and its implementing regulations were enacted to support women in education, they permitted the continuation of sex-separated athletic teams. Indeed, any action to prohibit single-sex teams for biological females would have been completely at odds with Congress’s overriding goal of providing women and girls with equal opportunities.”
Click here to read the full brief.
Background:
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group or BLAG is comprised of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and the Minority Whip. Pursuant to House Rule II, Clause 8, BLAG is responsible for articulating the House’s institutional position in legal filings with federal, state, and local courts. BLAG was established during the 103rd Congress. In this case, the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Majority Whip supported filing this brief. The Minority Leader and Minority Whip did not.