Morning Wire: "The Supreme Court Cases That Could Redefine Women’s Sports"

Date: January 17, 2026
Hosts: John Bickley & Georgia Howe
Guest: Kristen Wagner (President & CEO, Alliance Defending Freedom)

Episode Overview

This special "Legal Wire" edition of Morning Wire focuses on two landmark Supreme Court cases—ACLU v. West Virginia and Little v. Hecox (Idaho)—that address whether states can enact laws protecting girls’ and women’s sports by excluding biological males from competing in female athletic categories. The episode features expert analysis and commentary from Kristen Wagner, President and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who was present at the arguments and is directly involved in defending the state laws in question.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Cases and the Stakes

• Background: Both cases focus on whether state laws that restrict participation in women's sports to biological females violate constitutional protections or Title IX.
• Current Legal Landscape:
  • 27 states have laws protecting women's sports; 23 do not (04:57).
  • Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for every state and for federal Title IX protections.

Kristen Wagner:
"Alliance Defending Freedom has been representing female athletes for the better part of 10 years. Some are in states that are protecting women and others are in states that are violating their rights." (05:27)

2. Highlights from Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• Viral Moments:
  • Pro-transgender attorneys (ACLU) refused to define "woman" or "sex" when pressed by justices, leading to palpable tension in the courtroom (07:30).
  • Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Alito stressed the zero-sum nature of sports—that inclusion of males in female categories inevitably disadvantages girls and women (01:31, 13:02).

Justice Alito:
"We do not have a definition for the court..." (08:14)

Justice Kavanaugh:
"It's not like, oh, just to add another person to the team. That's not how sports works. It's someone else that's going to get disadvantaged." (13:09)

Notable Exchange:

• Justice Kagan:
  "How can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?" (08:31)

• Kristen Wagner (recapping):
  "You could almost hear a pin drop in the courtroom when the ACLU refused to acknowledge what a woman was..." (08:40)

3. Positions and Arguments

• Pro-Women’s Sports (ADF/States):
  • Focused on scientific, biological reality and fairness.
  • Argued that every spot and scholarship taken by a male is at women’s expense.

Kristen Wagner:
"Every time one of those scholarships goes to a man in the women's category, a deserving woman doesn't get that scholarship." (07:11)

• Pro-Transgender Participation (ACLU):

  • Claimed that barring males who identify as women is discriminatory.
  • Argued that, with hormone treatment, no meaningful difference exists— a position met with skepticism by justices.

• On Language Use (Cisgender/Transgender):

  • Some justices used gender identity language (e.g., "cisgender"), which Wagner found concerning and ideologically loaded (15:35).

Kristen Wagner:
"There's no such thing as a cisgender girl, and there's no such thing as a transgender girl." (16:37)

4. Scientific and Legal Framing

• Justice Kavanaugh: Stressed that the law, as written (Title IX), concerns biological sex unless Congress changes it in the future (13:09).
• Justice Alito: Questioned how discrimination could be assessed without objective definitions.

5. Impact on Female Athletes

• Wagner highlighted the lack of courtroom focus on the actual female athletes harmed—detailing displacement, lost opportunities, and even instances of harassment and retaliation (16:54, 17:10).
  • Example: In West Virginia, a male athlete displaced 423 girls 1,100 times, taking 57 medals (16:54).

6. Reactions and the Public Square

• In Court: The ACLU refrained from labeling pro-women's-sports advocates as bigoted (10:01).
• Outside Court: The public debate was much harsher, with "name-calling" and strong emotions (10:01).

7. Legal Precedent and Broader Implications

• Individualized Scrutiny?: The ACLU sought a test-by-test, individualized approach, leading to concerns about unworkable standards for law and constant challenges (19:35).
• Wider Societal Impact: Wagner underscored the importance of this case for defining "sex" and, by extension, the foundations of law and civilization (20:15).

Kristen Wagner:
"If it's impossible to define sex, we need to understand that's going to affect a whole host of laws and frankly, all of Western civilization." (20:15)

8. The Female Plaintiffs’ Perspective

• Wagner gave voice to the disappointment that the girls most affected were barely mentioned during oral arguments.
• Many of these athletes have faced cancellation, penalties, and social blowback but remain proud and hopeful (21:03).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• Justice Kavanaugh on zero-sum nature:
  -"It's not like, oh, just to add another person to the team. That's not how sports works. It's someone else that's going to get disadvantaged." (13:09)

• Justice Alito on definition of sex:
  -"We do not have a definition for the court..." (08:14)

• Justice Kagan’s probing question:
  -"How can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?" (08:31)

• Kristen Wagner on biological realities:
  -"There's no such thing as a cisgender girl, and there's no such thing as a transgender girl." (16:37)

• Kristen Wagner on downstream impact:
  -"If it's impossible to define sex, we need to understand that's going to affect a whole host of laws and frankly, all of Western civilization." (20:15)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 04:44 – Wagner’s Big Picture Takeaway
• 05:27 – Case Context and Background
• 07:30 – Viral Courtroom Moments
• 08:14–08:31 – Definition of Sex Exchange
• 10:01 – ACLU’s Courtroom Language on Bigotry
• 13:02–13:09 – Justice Kavanaugh on Zero-Sum Issue
• 15:35–16:37 – Use of Gender Identity Language by Justices
• 16:54–17:10 – Focus on Girls Impacted
• 19:35–20:15 – Individualized Legal Scrutiny and Broader Legal Ramifications
• 21:03 – Female Plaintiffs’ Response Post-Hearing

Episode Tone and Takeaways

The tone is urgent yet cautiously optimistic from the pro-women’s-sports perspective, focusing on the legal, social, and personal ramifications of redefining sex in law and athletics. Wagner and Bickley critique the ACLU’s inability to provide clear definitions and highlight the profound impact these cases will have on women’s rights, educational opportunities, and the nature of competitive sports in America.

For Listeners New to the Debate

This episode provides a thorough, accessible overview of the cases, the legal arguments on both sides, and why the Supreme Court’s decision will be pivotal not only for athletics but for societal understanding of sex and gender in law. It is essential listening for anyone interested in the future of women’s sports, civil rights law, and cultural debates around gender identity.