West Virginia v. B.P.J. is about whether West Virginia’s 2021 law, the Save Women’s Sports Act, requiring public school and collegiate sports teams be designated according to biological sex, violates Title IX of the Education Amendments and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Case Status
- Argued – pending decision
- Argued date: January 13, 2026
ERLC Brief
- Amicus brief joined by ERLC (filed for both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox)
What is this case about?
At the center of this case is a 2021 West Virginia law, the Save Women’s Sports Act, requiring public school and collegiate sports teams be designated according to biological sex. In response to the law’s requirements, a male West Virginia student, referred to by the initials B.P.J., who has identified as a girl since third grade, filed a lawsuit against several state agencies. B.P.J. was on his school’s girls’ cross-county and track teams. The lawsuit challenged that West Virginia’s law violates Title IX of the Education Amendments and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The district court granted an initial injunction allowing B.P.J. to continue running on the girls’ teams, but the final judgement found the law constitutionally classifies on biological sex to protect the state’s interest of fair opportunity in girls’ sports. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed judgement saying the law did violate Title IX and factual disputes prevented ruling on the equal protection claims.
What is the question in the case?
- Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and
- Whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
What does it matter to Southern Baptists?
As the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 lays out, “[God] created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation.” Southern Baptists have time and again opposed biological men competing in women’s sports and affirmed sports should be designated based upon biological sex, most recently at the 2025 annual meeting in Dallas in the resolution “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family.” This not only ensures fairness and safety in sports but also protects sex-specific spaces and honors God’s design for gender.
Post-oral arguments
During oral arguments, the justices leaned into the definition of “sex” as it was understood when Title IX was passed. B.P.J.’s attorney, conceding “sex” in Title IX means biological sex, argued that the law is sex discrimination because transgender status is a sex-based characteristic. However, as Justice Alito stressed during the arguments, “The question then becomes not whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex but discrimination on the basis of whatever characteristic you think should be included in the definition of sex. When sex is used as a statutory term, I’m not sure you have that flexibility.”
The other conservative justices also seemed unconvinced by B.P.J’s arguments, believing that Title IX’s sports amendment and regulations give states the ability to separate sports teams by biological sex without requiring them to give special carve outs in the law for transgender people. The three liberal justices were less sympathetic to the laws, asking why an individual who has taken drugs and hormones to eliminate their competitive advantage cannot challenge the law since they fall outside of the state’s justification of fairness in women’s sports. In response, the Trump Administration’s representative argued that West Virginia only needs to show a substantial relationship or a “reasonable fit” between its goal of ensuring fairness in women’s sports and its exclusion of transgender athletes, not a “perfect fit.”
