Podcast Summary: Tangle - "SCOTUS Weighs Ban on Trans Athletes in Women’s Sports"

Host: Will K. Back (Senior Editor), with commentary by Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth, and Isaac Saul
Date: January 14, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of the Tangle podcast explores the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent oral arguments in two landmark cases: challenges to state laws in West Virginia and Idaho banning transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ school sports. The discussion breaks down the legal arguments, analyzes perspectives from across the political spectrum, and provides insightful commentary from Tangle’s editorial team.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background of the Cases

(Starts at 02:32)

• West Virginia vs. BPJ:
  • Involves the Save Women’s Sports Act prohibiting individuals assigned male at birth from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams in public schools and colleges.
  • BPJ, a transgender girl, challenged this statute when she was barred from trying out for a girls’ team.
• Little vs. Hecox (Idaho):
  • Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act bars transgender women and girls from competing on women’s teams.
  • Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman at Boise State, and an anonymous high school athlete challenged the law due to invasive proposed verification procedures.
• Both cases question whether the 14th Amendment and Title IX protect transgender athletes from such bans.

2. SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Justices’ Perspectives

(Major coverage from 06:39 – 10:00)

• The Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether these laws unconstitutionally create "a subclass of people" (09:48).
• The plaintiffs’ legal teams struggled when pressed for definitions of "sex" and "gender"—a crucial point in the arguments.
• Justices Gorsuch and Barrett entertained the idea of transgender status as a discrete legal class, but overall skepticism prevailed.

Memorable Moment:
“Justice Samuel Alito got attorney Kathleen Hartnett to concede that she didn’t even have a definition of what a man or a woman is.” — Dan McLaughlin in National Review, summarized at (12:31)

3. Arguments from the Right

(12:03 – 13:47)

• Right-leaning commentators expect the Court to uphold state bans.
• Key points:
  • Emphasis on biological reality and the need for clear legal/statutory definitions of sex.
  • Concerns that including trans women would erode decades of gains and protections for women’s sports.
• Quote:
  “Now the Supreme Court will finally be able to clarify what the law already recognizes and so protect the rights not only of female athletes, but of all Americans who embrace biological reality and the simple truths of nature.”
  — Madison Kenyon & Mary Kate Marshall (Fox News), (13:40)

4. Arguments from the Left

(13:47 – 16:39)

• The left also expects the court to side with the states but frames the rulings as a significant, harmful blow to trans rights.
• Major concerns:
  • The danger of defining sex in rigidly biological terms, which could undermine protections for transgender people in other spheres (bathrooms, housing, admissions, etc.).
  • Arguments view these bans as erasure rather than fairness.
• Quote:
  “It won’t make transgender people disappear. That’s what this is about, not who gets to participate in sports...”
  — Nancy Armour (USA Today), (16:22)
• Quote:
  “If the court rules transgender status is not subject to heightened scrutiny … it would open the door for nearly any law targeting transgender people to be deemed constitutionally permissible.”
  — Aaron Reed (Aaron in the Morning), (15:25)

5. Analysis: Editorial Takes

Audrey Moorhead’s Take

(21:09 – 29:24)

• Expresses frustration at both sides for talking past one another.
• Argues that the right focuses on ontological definitions while the left values lived experience and individual expression.
• Moorhead is sympathetic to the left’s compassion for trans identities, but ultimately believes science and legal clarity require a sex-based definition in the context of competitive sports.
• Key arguments:
  • Scientific studies confirm innate physical advantages for males, even after hormone therapy.
  • Law requires rigid definitions to ensure fairness; otherwise, protections for women (in sports, workplaces, etc.) become unworkable.
  • While empathizing with the exclusion’s personal pain, Moorhead maintains that “clear definitions about women’s sports based on the science of physical differences is important to preserving the integrity and value of sports for biological women.” (28:55)

Staff Dissents

(30:39 – 32:44)

• Lindsey Knuth:

  • Favors a more flexible approach, allowing states/schools discretion for narrow exceptions—especially pre-puberty cases—without risking a ‘snowball effect’ undermining Title IX.
  • “Enacting broad bans is a step in the wrong direction, both for states’ rights and for the athletes involved who deserve access to the social and physical benefits that sports offer.” (31:44)

• Isaac Saul:

  • Sees the solution as lying with sports governing bodies rather than law.
  • Argues that states/feds should not set rigid one-size-fits-all rules; different organizations can set their own policies for inclusion based on safety and fairness.
  • "That's not your job and we can govern this ourselves... some organizations will want to be inclusive for trans athletes, and they should be allowed to without government interference." (32:23)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
  “...create a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.” (09:48)

• Summary of the central flaw:
  “The failure to define sex, even while Hartnett and Block argued that their clients had faced discrimination on the basis of sex, would make sex based laws nigh impossible to apply consistently.”
  — Audrey Moorhead (27:20)

• From the right:
  “You can’t bring a Title IX case without some idea of what the key statutory term means.”
  — Dan McLaughlin, National Review (12:31)

• From the left:
  “Such a ruling would mean that schools and colleges across the United States could discriminate against transgender people in education, not just in school sports, but in bathrooms, locker rooms, dormitory housing and even admissions policies.”
  — Aaron Reed (Aaron in the Morning), (15:25)

• Balance and empathy:
  "I can't help but sympathize with the pain that their exclusions necessarily cause them. But at the same time, I think clear definitions about women's sports based on the science of physical differences is important..."
  — Audrey Moorhead (28:55)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• SCOTUS oral arguments summary: 06:39 – 10:00
• Right-leaning commentary: 12:03 – 13:47
• Left-leaning commentary: 13:47 – 16:39
• Audrey Moorhead’s opinion: 21:09 – 29:24
• Staff dissents: 30:39 – 32:44

Conclusion

This episode offers a nuanced, balanced examination of a contentious legal and societal issue, presenting legal arguments, empirical realities, and differing editorial philosophies. The panel’s diverse perspectives aim to foster better understanding across the political divide, while the case itself underscores fundamental tensions in how law, science, and lived experience intersect in American civil rights jurisprudence.