← The Briefing with Albert Mohler
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Wednesday, July 1, 2026. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is a special edition of the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. This special edition is made necessary by the fact that on the very first day of July, we have to talk about big decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on the last day of June. Now, there were four cases, three big groupings of issues. One of them had to do with campaign financing. I'm not to give that much attention. We're going to give primary attention to two big issues. I think the most important of them were two cases having to do with the rights of states to limit biological males in terms of competing on girls teams. It was both girls and women's teams. And so we are looking at a big issue. We're also looking at yet another transgender case. Of course, there's going to be a lot for us to consider here, but the big fact, the bottom line is that by a 6:3 vote, a majority of the Supreme Court upheld the right of two states, the states of West Virginia and Idaho, to adopt legislation saying that biological males cannot play on girls or women's teams. And in particular, these two cases had to do with what began as girls teams, and it still is that way in West Virginia. As a matter of fact, the biological male, who in West Virginia has been claiming transgender female identity and has been competing in girls competitions, won yet another shot putt title. And so this issue could not be more relevant, by the way, that flies in the face of so many people who say this just doesn't happen. Well, not only does it happen, it happened in this particular case with this particular plaintiff in the state of West Virginia in recent days. Okay, here's the big bottom line and the take home in these two cases, one from Idaho, one from West Virginia, having to do with biological males wanting to compete on girls or women's teams. The supreme court, by a 6:3 majority, again said clearly that states have the right to impose this limitation. We're talking about Right now about 27 of the states that have adopted similar legislation or policy. And that turns out to be really important. And by the way, if you look at a map of the United States, just think of red and blue states. That's pretty much the overlay here. You look at the coasts, well, when you get to the Northeast coast and you get to the west coast, we're talking about very liberal states. And you're also looking at some of the Great Lake states, also heavily Democratic leaning in that way. But you look across the vast map of the United States, and the big center is very much made up of states. Again, I give you the number. 27 have adopted similar legislation, but that means that almost half the states have not. That's very problematic. It is telling that Kristen Wagner, who is the head of the Alliance Defending Freedom, made very clear that the next step in the legal strategy to recover sanity here is going to be arguing that the states that do not have such policies are violating the rights of girls and women. Okay, so there's some really big things that came out of this. You're not surprised by the 63 number, because there are six justices appointed by conservative presidents, three by President Donald Trump in his first term alone, and then there are three appointed by Democratic presidents. They tend to be, by no surprise, the three more liberal justices on the court. It is interesting, however, that on this transgender issue, in both cases, what you had was even the three liberal justices saying that having a rule that said that males, biological males, cannot play on female teams does not violate the Title 9 legislation that funds so much of higher education. That's actually a very big thing. And that's one of the reasons why so many of the trans activists and LGBTQ activists are very upset, not only with the result of this case, but which, by the way, is a repeated pattern now coming before the Supreme Court. This is the sixth loss for the transgender argument in 13 months before the Supreme Court of the United States. We're talking about what is clearly now a cultural trend, because it's not just the fact that the Supreme Court has handed down this series of decisions over the past 13 months, six in a row. It is also because there is broad public consensus on these issues, and that is exactly what the LGBTQ activist community is up against, and they are infuriated by this. You're going to see that in some of the comments made in the aftermath of the court announcing this decision. It is very interesting that when you look at this, you recognize that the Supreme Court justices are actually here in this case, both in terms of the majority opinion and in a dissenting opinion joined by other liberal justices. It's really clear that you're talking about some things here that you just could. Could not imagine most Supreme Court justices would ever have to talk about. That's because we are talking about very controversial issues having to do with, for example, whether or not a male body that goes through male puberty is one category and a male body that goes through what one of the justices actually called female puberty, which, of course, Is not true. There may be female hormones or something like that, but there's no way that a biological male is going through female puberty. That's just. That's just a fact. But it does show you the extent to which the claims made by the transgender activists are received unevenly in our society. So when you look at the fact the vast majority of Americans are real clear about the fact that a biological male shouldn't be playing on girls teams, you recognize you do have a significant portion of Americans who not only say they believe the opposite, but seem to actually more or less put their money where their mouth is. In other words, they're willing to put their legal reputations, their institutions, their teams on the line. So it is very interesting to look at this and recognize that I go back to the language. You have people here talking about whether or not the justice is debating in the majority versus the minority opinion, vice versa. You have arguments over, for example, how much of a physical advantage biological males have. And then it goes into the detail, certainly in terms of the dissent about whether or not you have different levels of male hormonal activity with different levels of pubertal development that would come with different levels of male male advantage. You know, one of the big issues that comes up in this case is the fact that when you are looking at this kind of classification, it has to be a generalization. One of the things that became very clear is that what you had on the liberal side was the argument that this ought to be taken on a case by case basis. That would be an entire cultural breakdown. And by the way, how would you have a case by case basis that could be adjudicated in any fair way? Even if you tried to go with that logic, you've got 50 students, states, you have all kinds of situation that would be a recipe for coming to no determination whatsoever. Which is exactly what the conservative justices understood. Clearly, in the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, we find this, quote, the differences between men and women include, among other things, height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, and jumping ability. Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males and can create significant safety risks. And in virtually all competitive sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness. They went on to say that in these cases from West Virginia and Idaho, quote, the question before the court is, under Title IX and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, may schools maintain women's and girls sports for biological females? In other words, and in this case, it's rather amazing that Justice Kavanaugh had to write, in other words, to get the full statement, in other words, may schools determine eligibility for women's and girls sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes, period. So that is the essence of the decision in the bottom line. And by the way, the court looked at the cases there in Idaho and West Virginia, considered them, frankly, in detail. There were also concurring opinions, including one from Justice Clarence Thomas, that goes into tremendous detail. I think it's fair to say Justice Thomas would have taken the argument a bit further, and he might have that opportunity if indeed the Court, in a future year or future term would consider a case challenging the right of states to allow biological males on girls and women's teams, in other words, to flip the question exactly as Kristen Wagner had indicated in his opinion for the Court. It is interesting that Justice Kavanaugh cited the fact that organizations, including ruling authorities for the International Olympics organizations, have come back to say no, only biological females may compete as girls or women in the Olympics. That's something that many people didn't expect, given the more liberal worldview, so many in control of big international organizations like the International Olympic Committee. But the fact is, biology matters. This is something very central to the Christian worldview. Biology matters, ontology matters, creation, order matters, male and female matter. One of the astounding issues of clarification, and it shows up in repeated statements made in both the majority opinion, concurring opinions and dissenting opinions. One of the amazing things is that there seems to be a basic consensus that, yes, being male or female does make a big difference when it comes to sports. As I say, it is still rather amazing that all three of the liberal justices accepted that these state laws in West Virginia and Idaho did not violate Title ix. That really is big. And it's also interesting that the liberal justices seemed to accept that there would be at least some cases in which someone is biologically male and has advantages that cannot be overcome or denied. It is very interesting that in the dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Santa Mayor, it is very interesting that she accepts that certainly there can be differences that would be problematic. And that's why she calls for an individual determination. She also calls for allowing lower courts to work out some of these issues in detail. It is very telling that the six justices and the conservative majority said, no, we're going to deal with this. And of course, they are dealing with reality. They're affirming reality. They are also speaking up for the girls and women who would be disadvantaged if any of these laws were to be put not Only, let's just say, in a cancellation category. But even if they were put on hold for some period of time, the headline coming out of West Virginia about that shot putt title is just another reminder that this is reality as it's being lived out in many high school and collegiate team or athletic contexts. It is really interesting to see that in the majority opinion, the conservative justices went back to make clear that the very idea of having separate male and female sports, separate boys sports and girls sports, men's sports and women's sports, and the fact that they are included with those distinctions in the federal legislative categories and also in Title ix, by the way, the conservative justices came back to say that makes no sense. By the way, there are some on the left who are arguing that the use of male and female, even in Title 9, that that doesn't necessarily have to be tied to biological sex. Again, it's very interesting to see that all nine of the justices basically decided not to make that argument. The fact that the three liberals really didn't, that tells us something. But it is interesting that in the majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, he cites a 1980 determination. So remember that that is long before much of the gay rights movement. It's certainly long before the transgender revolution. But in that case known as O' Connor versus Board of Education, and that's 1980, again, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, quote, without a gender based classification in competitive context sports, there would be a substantial risk that boys would dominate the girls programs and denied them an equal opportunity to compete in interscholastic events. End quote. So let's just point out that one of the things the conservatives had going for them here are precedents set by the Court in the past when the very idea, not to mention ideology, of the transgender movement would have been unthinkable. Now, of course, in one very real theological sense, it's still unthinkable. But that doesn't mean that it is not an actual ideology that is being put forth by so many in our society. And again, we're talking about 27 states that have the right kind of laws on the books. That leaves, as you can do the math, 23 states that do not. Now, when you have a decision like this handed down, everyone knew this was going to be big. The seismic magnitude of this decision is reflected in the fact that it was released on the last possible day of the Court's term. It's also very interesting to look at the kind of response not just when we're talking about the majority opinion and then dissenting opinions. But when we are talking about the cultural conversation, I want to point to something very interesting because, of course, there's outcry on the left, there's outcry among the LGBTQ activist community, there's outcry among many prominent Democrats. All of that is to be expected. What I didn't so much expect, but what makes perfect sense, is an argument that was made, for example, yesterday at Virtual Vox. That's a rather liberal state, and it was an article written by Ian Millhiser, and he was offering a warning to liberal lawyers to stay out of this territory. That is very telling. It's extremely interesting. In other words, someone basically writing from the left and certainly at a site that basically plays to the left. The argument is, we better stop sending these cases to the court because we have just lost six in a row in 13 months. You send up more of these cases, and we might actually, I think you see, from the LGBTQ activist side, we might actually lose more ground rather than gain it. That is reflected, by the way, in the fact that in terms of public opinion, they have been losing ground. There is just no question about it. And what they said couldn't happen and wouldn't happen is happening. I go back to that shot put headline. You know, it is happening. And by the way, it's happening in some of the states that have no such policies and are allowing transgender females, as they identify themselves, which means biological males, to compete in girls athletics and in women's events as well. That's going to come with consequences. And I think you can count on the fact right now that what so many in the LGBTQ activist community really fear at the moment is the fact that there are going to be plaintiffs in those states that are now going to bring cases arguing that the lack of such policies exposes women and girls to very dangerous discrimination and sometimes even to physical injury. It is interesting that the conservative justices came back to that, as did Justice John Paul Stevens back in 1980, before leaving this issue, because it's just so important. I want to go to the dissenting opinion written by Justice Santa Mayor. I want to reflect what she says. I want to use her actual words here. Here's what she writes. Quote, as all agree, the ban at issue classifies based on sex. West Virginia seeks to separate sports teams based solely on an individual's sex assigned at birth. As a result, cisgender girls. Notice she uses that category, that that means girls who know their girls, quote, who sex identified at birth as female, can play on girls teams Whereas transgender girls, again, now, she clearly accepts that as a category. So she's asserting that that's clear, very different than what you find in the conservative majority opinion. She writes that, quote, transgender girls whose sex identified at birth is male cannot, in other words, they can't compete. The difference, undoubtedly, she writes, is sex. Okay, so that appears that she's offering a liberal argument that, yes, the word sex now includes biological males claiming to be female. She then writes, the key question here is whether that sex separation is constitutionally justified. The interesting thing is that she doesn't categorically say that it is constitutionally unjustified. And I think even when it comes to Justice Sotomayor coming very much from the left, she can't say that biology never matters. She just wants to argue that maybe it doesn't always matter. And of course, as conservatives look at this as a matter of principle and policy, it always matters, period. It is very telling to see how this argument is being reshaped right before our eyes and this release of this major decision, two landmark cases on one issue from the Supreme Court yesterday, this turns out to be really important. And we as Christians should understand we should rejoice and be thankful for any constitutional affirmation, any judicial affirmation of creation order. Creation order doesn't depend upon that affirmation. But you know what, getting the order right, it is really important that judges and justices affirm creation order. The alternative, by the way, is absolute chaos. I think the American people sense that, even if they won't say it out loud. Okay, now we have to shift to the second big issue. This one is really seismic as well. On his first day in office for a second term, President Donald Trump said that it would be the policy of his administration to deny what he defines as birthright citizenship to persons who should not qualify, particularly to children of illegal aliens, illegal immigrants here in the United States, or those who do not have of recognized immigration status. Now, the background to this is the fact that going back now well over a century, it has been assumed and claimed and recognized in the main in the courts that the vast majority of babies born in the United States are just granted so called birthright citizenship just because they were born within the territory and the sovereignty of the United States of America. Now, even with the Supreme Court decision striking down the Trump administration's policy, and it was pretty flat in that, that turning down of the policy, it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court does recognize that there are some who would have babies in this country and they would not receive Birthright citizenship, and that would be, in particular, the children of diplomats. One of the very interesting issues in the language of the Constitution and in the 14th amendment has to do with in the jurisdiction of the United States and what that means. And another principle that's been very important in American law has been that when you have someone under a foreign jurisdiction, that is, say, someone who's a citizen of a foreign country and under that jurisdiction, that they're not to be considered citizens of the United States. So it is a very interesting issue. And yet the vast majority of persons who looked at the case as it was shaping up understood that it was really unlikely that the Court would side with the President. Now, let me say I believe the President makes a cogent argument, and I believe he's onto something that the founders certainly did not intend. And I don't even believe that the Americans who ratified amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War meant any such thing as birthright citizenship in the way that it now operates so that people can get on a plane, say from China or from Russia or just about anywhere, come to the United States at just the right time to have a baby, and that baby would be born in the territory of the United States and thus would be granted automatically birthright citizenship. That is a huge problem. Now, going back a matter of decades, these babies have sometimes been described as anchor babies. That is anchoring a. An immigration claim. And you have a baby who's born, and then, well, you now you have an American citizen, it's claimed, and thus the parents would have some right to say they need to stay to take care of the parents, you can understand how this has been going. President Trump, I believe, is and was absolutely right to say that this is not sustainable. I believe the President was absolutely right. At the same time, given the fact that the Supreme Court has, over a process of again more than a century, just declared the fact that in the main, a baby born in the territory of the United States is granted birthright citizenship. It was unlikely from the beginning that the Supreme Court was going to accept the President's argument. At the same time, there were certain crumbles dropped that could lead to significant action because Justice Kavanaugh, for example, in a concurring opinion, said he based his opinion not on anything in the Constitution or any amendment thereof, but rather on federal statutory law. Now, when you see the numbers in this, you'll see it described as 6, 3 or 5, 4. And that is because Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the conclusion, but not with the argument. Okay, so why Is that important? It is, because Justice Kavanaugh stated quite bluntly that in his view, the Congress has the right to effect statutory change that would restrict the category of birthright citizenship. Now, the president called for the Congress to do just that immediately after this was announced. Now, remember that President Trump went and sat in the gallery. It's the first and only time a president of the United States has ever done that at the Supreme Court when the oral arguments for this case were heard. Now, let's be very clear. The president staked a lot on this decision, and he is extremely disappointed. So are many people in the United States who feel like the very category of American citizenship is just becoming increasingly subverted by this birthright citizenship claim and by the fact that it has now been put in a context in which you can have people just fly across the Pacific or the Atlantic coming on what amounts to a tourist permission, and they come just in time to give birth to a baby that is then granted automatic U.S. citizenship. That's a huge problem that undermines the very integrity of the notion of citizenship. And of course, it comes with a big financial cost. President Trump has been very honest about that. I think for most Christians, the big concern here is not going to be so much the financial cost. That's not irrelevant. It is the moral cost of subverting the very notion of citizenship. If citizenship is just a bundle of rights, you can get by, well, what's basically an accident, a birthday or a strategy at birth, you might say, then you're just subverting the entire constitutional basis, or for that matter, even just the vocabulary basis of the word citizen or the category of citizenship. That's a big issue. It's going to be very interesting to see how the Trump administration responds to this. The big headline is that the president was turned back on a giant initiative of the Trump administration. Is that true or false? It's basically true. It is interesting that Justice Kavanaugh dropped that hint. It's also interesting that you have many people among conservatives acknowledging we're going to have to either bring another case and win on a different ground at the Supreme Court, or we're going to have to press through an amendment to the U.S. constitution. And so that is the predicament. I just want to go back to the abortion issue and so many other issues and say that even when you have a disappointing decision like this, and it is disappointing, there is still the ground for hope that another case with different circumstances and a different timing can come before the court with a different result. I do think however, that on this case, it is going to be important that the United States consider an amendment to the US Constitution to define citizenship in such a way that the so called tourism citizenship, or citizenship tourism, or for that matter, just birthright citizenship, when it's applied to persons who shouldn't qualify. I think this is a situation in which there will be increasing understanding among Americans. I have to hope so. And let's just once again consider both of the giant cases we're talking about and understand that when we are talking about cases of this magnitude, the debate may be silenced for a moment simply by the decision of the Supreme Court, or at least silenced at the court. The fact is that in the public and in the culture, the debates go on. I guarantee you the transgender activists aren't going to say, you know, we're done. Let's walk away from this. That's not going to happen. And I think it's also true that on the birthright citizenship issue, there are a lot of constitutional conservatives who are going to say, okay, we have to make a better argument in a different case next time. And we also have to be involved getting Congress to legislate and eventually convincing the American people to adopt a constitutional amendment to uphold the very conception of authentic citizenship. That doesn't mean you have no one who can gain citizenship from outside the country. It doesn't mean that most of the babies born in the United States would not qualify. It does mean that when you have an intentional manipulation of the system that is made possible by circumstances now in the 21st century, you've got to go back to previous language and understand that the wording is going to have to be brought in line with national priorities and national principles. Or we are simply saying that decisions made, say, well over a century ago are going to bind the United States. Issues from the age of sail are now going to be determinative in the age of jet aircraft. And by the way, when even on the left, there is an increased candor on the fact that this kind of birth tourism or birth citizenship manipulation is happening. One final thought. Let's just remember again how important it is for us to recognize what devastation would come if the Supreme Court on the transgender athlete cases had ruled the other way, we're not only glad to see the court affirm this kind of sanity, brothers and sisters. We need to be thankful that the court acted rightly in this case, because had they done the opposite, it would be a cultural disaster. And that's something we just need to face. Honestly. These cases were so important. I did feel that we should come back and look at them on this very first day of July. This was a special edition of the Briefing and I thank you for listening. For more information, go to my website@albertmohler.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to SPTI. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com Lord willing, I'll meet you on Monday, August 3, 2026 for the new season of the Briefing. God bless you all.