The Chromosome Clause: The New Era of Olympic Sex Verification

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/female-chromosomes-olympic-sex-verification-trans-transgender-athletes/

Olympic Committee bars transgender athletes from women’s events

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/world/olympics/ioc-transgender-athletes-ban.html

#HackerNews #Olympics #TransgenderAthletes #SportsNews #GenderEquality #IOC

Bill to make transgender athlete ban permanent passes Missouri House

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://missouriindependent.com/2026/02/26/bill-to-make-transgender-athlete-ban-permanent-passes-missouri-house/

Trump admin targets Minnesota for allowing trans girls to participate in sports

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/minnesota-transgender-girls-sports-trump

How the US supreme court case on trans athletes could unravel LGBTQ+ rights – US Supreme Court – The Guardian

Analysis

How the US supreme court case on trans athletes could unravel LGBTQ+ rights

By Sam Levin in Los Angeles

If bans on trans youth athletes are upheld, more girls could face ‘invasive sex testing’ and trans people could broadly lose civil rights protectionsMon 12 Jan 2026 07.00 EST

The US supreme court will consider state bans on transgender athletes on Tuesday in a major LGBTQ+ rights legal battle that could have far-reaching consequences beyond youth sports.

The court is hearing oral arguments in two cases brought by trans students who challenged Republican-backed laws in West Virginia and Idaho prohibiting trans girls from participating in girls’ athletic programs.

Those bans were both previously blocked by federal courts, but the states appealed to the supreme court, which is hearing a case on trans people’s access to sports for the first time. If the court’s conservative supermajority sides with the states and upholds the bans, the rulings could have significant ripple effects, paving the way for the enforcement of a range of anti-LGBTQ+ policies.

If the rulings are broad, civil rights advocates warn, the supreme court could make it easier for lawmakers and school officials to ban trans students’ access to appropriate bathrooms and facilities, restrict LGBTQ+ youth’s ability to use chosen names and pronouns, enforce strict dress codes, limit protections against anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, and further deny access to accurate identification documents.

“It’s really scary. The supreme court is poised to tell us whether dislike and moral disapproval of a specific group can be a real basis to make law,” said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy for the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights group.

‘This isn’t just about me’

In Little v Hecox, Lindsay Hecox, a trans college student, challenged Idaho’s first-in-the-nation law categorically banning trans women and girls from women’s sports teams, which passed in 2020, blocking her from track at age 19. She has since sought to have the case dismissed, arguing she is no longer pursuing sports and doesn’t want to be subjected to ongoing harassment. But the court decided to hear the case, anyway.

In the second case, West Virginia v BPJ, 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson has challenged her state’s law banning her track participation, saying in a recent statement: “This case isn’t just about me, or even just about sports. It’s just one part of a plan to push transgender people like me out of public life entirely.”

In the last five years, 27 states have restricted trans children and teens’ access to school sports – most targeting trans girls, but some applying to all trans youth.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: How the US supreme court case on trans athletes could unravel LGBTQ+ rights | US supreme court | The Guardian

The trans athletes at the center of Supreme Court cases don’t fit conservative stereotypes

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender-athletes-supreme-court

SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12

By Kelsey Dallas, on Jan 12, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

Today marks the start of the court’s January argument session. The court will hear seven arguments over the next 10 days on such issues as transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, gun rights, and President Donald Trump’s bid to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• The Supreme Court released an opinion on Friday, but perhaps not the one you were expecting. The 5-4 ruling was in Bowe v. United States, a case on a federal prisoner’s efforts to obtain post-conviction relief. In an opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that a federal law instructing courts to dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application does not apply to motions filed by federal prisoners. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined in full by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
• Also on Friday, the court indicated that it may announce opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST. SCOTUSblog will be live blogging any opinion announcements beginning at 9:30.
• Friday afternoon, the court announced that it had granted review in five cases. For more on these disputes, see the On Site section below.
• This morning, the court is expected to release an order list with denied petitions and other case updates at 9:30 a.m. EST.
• The justices will hear argument today in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, on the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court. Justice Samuel Alito will not participate because he has a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, which is the parent company of one of the defendants.
• Tomorrow, the justices will hear arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., on laws barring transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. We will be live blogging the arguments beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.

Morning Reads

• Eyes are on Gorsuch as Supreme Court weighs rights of trans athletes (Julian Mark, The Washington Post)(Paywall) — In 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch “wrote one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential rulings expanding legal rights for gay and transgender people” in a case on employment discrimination. Now, “Gorsuch is again in the spotlight,” according to The Washington Post, as the court considers two disputes over laws preventing transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. The law’s opponents are drawing on that 2020 ruling as they try to persuade Gorsuch to protect transgender athletes, per the Post, while the law’s supporters argue that “sports is different from the workplace.”
• Supreme Court, Swamped by Emergencies, Neglects Rest of Docket (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)(Paywall) — The court’s Friday ruling in Bowe v. United States has the distinction of being the first opinion in an argued case to be released this term. The fact that it didn’t arrive until January is notable, because “[o]ver the last 80 years, the Supreme Court has only once before waited until January to issue its first opinion in an argued case,” according to The New York Times. Experts specializing in Supreme Court advocacy told the Times that “a spike in action on the court’s other docket,” where the justices address requests for interim relief, “seems to have diverted the court from its merits docket,” slowing the pace of opinions.
• These are the books families opted-out of after Supreme Court fight (Talia Richman, The Baltimore Banner) — In a June 27 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the “Supreme Court sided with a group of parents [in Montgomery County, Maryland] who sought the right to opt-out of lessons that included LGBTQ storybooks,” holding that refusing such opt-out requests violates religious freedom. Since then, according to The Baltimore Banner, “[i]n a district of more than 156,000 students, just 56 families asked Montgomery County school leaders to excuse their child from reading books that conflict with their religious beliefs.” These requests mostly came from “the parents of elementary schoolers” and “generally centered around books with LGBTQ characters, as well as those that included themes of diversity.”
• Lawsuits by Trump allies could shape how the 2030 census is done and who will be counted (Mike Schneider, Associated Press) — “The next U.S. census is four years away,” but legal battles over it have already begun, according to the Associated Press. “Allies of President Donald Trump are behind the federal lawsuits challenging various aspects of the once-a-decade count by the U.S. Census Bureau,” including the inclusion of noncitizens. “The first Trump administration also attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, a move that was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
• Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Happy New Hires (David Lat, Original Jurisdiction) — In a post for his Substack, David Lat offered an update on Supreme Court clerk hiring and highlighted recent research on the jobs clerks typically have before and after working for a justice. He also highlighted various studies about clerkships, including investigations into what factors contribute to judges becoming feeder judges for the Supreme Court, such as the training they offer their clerks, personal relationships, and ideological compatibility.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12 – SCOTUSblog