Federalist Radio Hour Episode: Inside The Fight To Protect Women’s Sports At SCOTUS Host: Matt Kittle Guest: Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow at Defending Education Date: January 20, 2026

Overview

This episode examines two landmark Supreme Court cases—Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.T.J.—that challenge state laws restricting participation in women’s sports to biological females. Host Matt Kittle and guest Sarah Parshall Perry delve into the oral arguments, legal frameworks, cultural context, and potential ramifications for women’s and girls’ athletics, Equal Protection, and Title IX. They discuss the broader cultural and legal battle lines over the meaning of sex, gender, and fairness in sports.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The High Stakes at SCOTUS

• The episode begins with Matt Kittle outlining the core issue: "These are two Supreme Court cases. If you're not familiar, they have major implications for women's and girls sports and whether schools must allow male athletes to compete on girls teams." (00:31)
• Perry contextualizes the cases as part of a "cultural moment" and a challenge to long-held federal civil rights principles, especially Title IX. (02:54)

2. The Core Legal Questions and Courtroom Drama

• Justice Samuel Alito questioned counsel for the transgender athlete on definitions: "What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman when it came to equal protection purposes?" (01:40)
  • Hartnett, representing the athlete, replied, “We don’t have a definition.” (02:32)
• Perry underscores the surreal nature of the debate: "The fact that these questions have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land for resolution, indicates how far we have strayed from the notion of biological reality..." (02:54)
• The tension in oral arguments is highlighted by the struggle and frustration of the justices, particularly Alito, at counsel's inability or inconsistency in defining “woman,” making it almost impossible to assess sex discrimination claims. (06:00)

3. Sides and Strategies in Oral Arguments

• Perry notes: "The liberal justices... spent the majority of their lines of questioning trying to narrow what I anticipate to be an upcoming victory for both of the states." (08:43)
• Mootness was considered—whether the cases were still “live”—but only Justice Sotomayor seriously questioned it. (08:43)
• Justice Roberts focused on whether the plaintiffs were challenging the male/female distinction itself, or seeking only a narrow exception for some transgender athletes. (13:13)
  • Perry: "She had to be honest and say, we're not taking issue with the definitions. In fact, it did her well to make that concession." (13:13)

4. Title IX and Legislative Intent

• Perry draws a sharp line between the original meaning and modern reinterpretations of Title IX:
  • “Title IX... meant biological distinctions between male and female. And that's precisely what these two states had replicated.” (13:13)
  • She details the Biden administration’s reinterpretation of "sex" to include gender identity, the ensuing state reaction, and the litigation landscape. (16:56)
  • The Biden administration’s regulations faced near-universal defeat in court, with 11 federal lawsuits against them all succeeding in blocking or vacating the rules. (16:56)

5. Federalism, States’ Rights, and Patchwork Outcomes

• There’s a strong prediction that the Supreme Court will leave much discretion to the states, citing the Dobbs and Scrovetti decisions and the overall inclination of the Court to defer to legislative judgment. (22:13, 23:00)
  • Perry: “They do not want to get involved in questions on which state legislators have already spoken.... I would be very surprised if that... language does not make an appearance in these issues here.” (22:13)
• On the flip side, states with trans-inclusive policies still have to navigate Title IX if they accept federal funding; the federal-state legal relationship remains complex. (24:51)

6. The Historical Arc and Political Ramifications

• Perry reflects on the history of Title IX, noting both its original motivation—to remedy discrimination against women in education and sport—and the fact that "gender identity, transgender status never appeared once" in the legislative record. (30:45)
• She expresses disappointment in the silence of first-wave feminists and underscores the tension between original legislative intent and current applications. (30:45)

7. The Cultural Divide and Future Legal Battles

• Kittle frames the debate as a conflict between “reality and insanity,” cutting across party lines, given polling data that shows strong bipartisan support for single-sex sports teams. (41:58, 34:38)
  • Perry notes, "65% of Democrats want sports separated by biological sex," calling it an "80/20 issue." (34:38)
• Perry suggests the possibility of third, co-ed sport categories for transgender athletes as a democratic solution, rather than redefining existing categories. (34:38)
• Internationally, the Olympic Committee’s evolving policy is mentioned as an indicator of global attitudes shifting on the issue, prompted by compelling and sometimes disturbing athletic outcomes. (37:10)
  • Perry references the Angela Carini incident and the clear biological advantages retained despite attempts to level the field. (38:08)

8. Broader Implications: Gender Secrecy Policies

• Perry previews three Supreme Court cases related to parental rights and gender secrecy plans in schools, where schools may hide a child’s gender identity status from parents. (42:49)
  • She stresses: "We have maintained for the better part of six years the only database in the country tracking the number of gender secrecy policies coast to coast. At this point, there are approaching 13 million children who attend schools with these express policies on the books. We are eager for the Court's resolution." (43:07)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Matt Kittle (01:31): “Let us begin here with the absolute insanity of what I like to call the Lola camp. Do you remember the Kinks song, Lola? The girls can be boys and boys can be girls... It is indeed a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.”
• Justice Alito (quoted by Kittle) (05:41): “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”
• Sarah Parshall Perry (06:11): “[Alito] is, I think, one of my emerging favorite justices because... it is usually Alito who comes out and says the ob thing, which is, what does sex mean?”
• Perry (24:51): “As is the nature of the tenth Amendment, police power to regulate on things like health, safety, welfare, medical licensing, education. We may see the same thing here. Now there is one superseding question... federal law trumps state law when federal law would be frustrated... by contrary state laws.”
• Perry (34:38): “I do not believe constitutional or statutory principles of interpretation require the 99 to bend the will of the 1. And that is exactly what we heard in colloquies with Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and... Justice Kavanaugh, when they said the law applies for 99% of individuals, you are asking us to create an exception.”
• Perry (40:24): “Never in American civil rights jurisprudence has the court recognized that someone's internal sense of their own reality requires the rest of American culture to facilitate it.”
• Perry (43:07): “At this point, there are approaching 13 million children who attend schools with these express [gender secrecy] policies on the books. We are eager for the Court’s resolution.”

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:31–02:54: Introduction, case background, and cultural context
• 05:02–07:46: Justice Alito’s frustration with definitions; "shot across the bow" exchange
• 08:43–13:13: Oral argument strategies and likely outcomes; Chief Justice Roberts’ probing of narrow exceptions
• 16:03–21:09: Legislative, regulatory, and legal history of Title IX, Bostock, and state actions
• 22:13–24:51: Predictions for patchwork outcomes and federalism implications
• 30:45–34:38: Disappointment with feminist silence; Title IX’s origin and intent; legislative inertia
• 34:38–37:10: Political consequences, polling data, and democratic solutions
• 37:10–41:58: International ripple effects, Olympics, and the challenge of biological advantage
• 42:49–44:54: Preview of future Supreme Court litigation on parental rights and gender secrecy in schools

Tone and Style

• The conversation maintains a direct, at times incredulous, and passionate tone, reflecting both Kittle’s and Perry’s frustration and determination regarding what they view as the legal and cultural stakes of the cases.
• Perry provides detailed legal insight in plain language, expressing a clear originalist and textualist viewpoint anchored in legislative history and constitutional structure.

Conclusion

This episode offers an in-depth analysis of the battle over women’s sports at the Supreme Court, examining both legal doctrine and cultural implications. It highlights the complexity of gender identity issues in educational and athletic settings, the enduring power of state law, and the continuing impact of Title IX. Perry forecasts a likely victory for state laws restricting sports by biological sex, while preparing for new fronts in the ongoing legal and policy debates over gender and parental rights in education.