Opinion - ‘Two Genders' too hot to handle? The Supreme Court punts again
We know the Supreme Court can only accept a fraction of cases on appeal and must consider a range of challenges as broad as the Constitution itself. But it seems that issues begging for resolution are being pushed aside, tipping the scales toward acceptance.
Is the raging debate over 'two genders' too hot to handle? The high court's rejection of gender-related cases covering school restrooms, locker rooms, and women's sports has been a source of frustration since 2019. The unresolved question is whether Title IX protects students based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity — a question the Supreme Court has never answered.
Rejecting cases about school sports and spaces has stymied resolution of issues surrounding students' rights and schools' obligations to protect them. Related cases now challenge discrimination against students wearing expressive T-shirts. We have seen stories of female athletes and spectators at sporting events being told to remove shirts declaring 'Girls' sports for girls only.' The Supreme Court's latest dodge involves a T-shirt proclaiming 'There are only two genders.'
In its May 27 order, the court denied a petition to hear the case of L.M. et al. v. Middleborough. Not all justices agreed. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a weighty 14-page dissent.
'This case presents an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive,' Alito wrote.
He went on to highlight the blatant double standard upheld by the lower courts.
'In this case, a middle school permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders,' he wrote. 'But when L. M., a seventh grader, wore a T-shirt that said, 'There Are Only Two Genders,' he was barred from attending class. And when he protested this censorship by blocking out the words 'Only Two' and substituting 'CENSORED,' the school prohibited that shirt as well.'
Alito goes on to explain how the lower court fabricated a new test for viewpoint discrimination, 'cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates.' He warns the divided interpretation of the relevant precedent in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 'underscores the pressing need for clarification. … The court has instead decided to let the confusion linger.'
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has dodged the schoolyard debate between gender ideology and biology.
Since 2019, three cases involving students' rights to sex-based school facilities from three different circuit courts have been denied. The Supreme Court had a prime opportunity to correct the silence two years ago but punted. Negligence has consequences. Illinois middle school girls are being forced to undress with transgender-identifying males in their PE locker room. Males in Loudoun County, Virginia, are being punished for objecting to a confrontational transgender-identifying female in the boys' bathroom.
Yet the Supreme Court continues to stonewall appeals from three states seeking reinstatement of laws protecting women's sports based on biological sex. The delay has devastated female student-athletes.
West Virginia passed its Save Women's Sports law in 2021 but has faced legal whiplash in federal court ever since. While its petition languishes, girls continue to lose out as a transgender-identifying male, who won multiple middle school awards in girls' shot put, qualified and competed as a freshman at the West Virginia state championship.
Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R) decried the violation of state law. 'A boy is competing in girls' sports at the high school state track meet in West Virginia,' he said. 'It's wrong and unfair. I'm again urging officials to keep separate scores so that the true winners can be awarded once we win in court.'
As cases multiply, it's hard to understand why the Supreme Court avoids taking them. These cases cry out for resolution.
Alito, with 20 years on the high court — nearly as long as the newest four justices combined — expresses palpable frustration over the latest denial regarding the 'two genders' T-shirt. The argument from the First Circuit declaring that a 'general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools' practically dares the court to take L.M.'s case.
So does a fundamental issue plaguing all gender-related cases in schools. Alito's dissent sums it up: '[S]ome lower courts are confused on how to manage the tension between students' rights and schools' obligations. Our Nation's students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity on this critically important question.'
Students are wearing T-shirts, female athletes are boycotting, and poll after poll shows the American public overwhelmingly agrees it's time for biological truth to be upheld in sports, women's spaces, and speech.
We are making our appeal. Respectfully submitted, it is time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate.
Doreen Denny is a Senior Advisor at Concerned Women for America.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Court Ruling Kills Congressional Purse Power
Whatever happened to judges just reading the law and doing what it says? After a D.C. appellate court last week ignored a duly enacted law and gutted congressional control over spending, the late Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia must be spinning in his grave. It was Scalia, after all, who said: "The text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed." Apparently, not in the D.C. Court of Appeals, and our cowardly Congress will rue the day this emasculating ruling remains the law of the land. The case was all about congressional power. Did President Donald Trump have the power to refuse to spend as mandated by the budget passed by Congress? President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter aboard Air Force One on Aug. 15, 2025, in flight. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter aboard Air Force One on Aug. 15, 2025, in whether you like or dislike the things Congress chose to fund. Someday the answer will affect things you like and don't like. The point is that the Constitution says that Congress has the sole power to decide what the country spends on, and with a bit of jiggery-pokery, this court let all the air out of those words. The jiggery was for the court to ignore how important it is for a court to rule directly on the real issue in front of it whenever possible. Rather than uphold the words of the Constitution, two of the three judges invented an idea that a party who claims the president violated a law passed by Congress can't also claim that the president violated the Constitution. Why? Beats me, but it also beat half of the claims in the lawsuit. The pokery was even worse. To restrict presidents from grabbing congressional budget power by what's known as "impoundment," Congress passed a law creating strict rules for how a president can ask Congress to cancel spending it mandated. It also authorized the comptroller of the United States to sue presidents to stop them from ignoring the federal budget. Again, ignoring the words of the law, the two-judge majority held that only the comptroller could sue to stop the president, not people whose lives and fortunes were destroyed by the president's impoundment decisions. Incredibly, they ignored that Congress explicitly said in the law that allowing the comptroller to sue must not be seen as "affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment." Tell me, how does destroying those claims not affect them in any way? Forgive them Nino! The net result of the decision is that the Constitution can't be enforced against presidents whenever they might also have violated some statute too, and stopping the president rests on the whim of a single individual—the comptroller. And perhaps the panel knew something about the current comptroller. This comptroller, Gene Dodaro's term ends in December, and guess who gets to appoint his replacement? That's right, Donald Trump, the man the comptroller would have to sue. Game over? Maybe not. One of the three judges wrote a blistering dissent. There are 11 judges on this court, and they could decide to rehear the case with everyone participating. They can fix it. If they don't, the Supreme Court should. And don't expect it to automatically agree with Trump. The justices have actually been more nuanced than people give them credit for. They seem to agree that the Constitution gives the president more power over personnel issues in the executive branch than previous courts. But, when it comes to spending, the Court has repeatedly held that it's sacrosanct—it's controlled by Congress. They even overturned a law that allowed the president a line-item veto. They said it violated the separation of powers. And this is a good time to remember this pivotal principle. We have three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. They are supposed to be equal, so they can keep each other's ambitions in check—and—you know—avoid a dictatorship. If the courts want to avoid dictatorship, they need to overturn this ruling. No excuses. No tricks. Just make it clear now that there are limits to presidential power. Think about what's at stake. Let's say you support President Trump. How will you feel if he is replaced by President Zohran Mamdani, and the man has absolute power? Is that OK with you? Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Abortion pill fight reaches pharmacy board rooms
A year after the Supreme Court preserved abortion pill access, the fight over dispensing mifepristone is shifting from courtrooms to boardrooms as anti-abortion forces press pharmacy chains not to sell the drugs. The big picture: Costco last week said it won't stock mifepristone at its more than 500 pharmacies. Conservative groups are pushing other pharmacies — including Walgreens and CVS, which offer the pills in states where abortion is legal — to follow suit. "We can effectuate real change by talking to these companies and engaging with them," said Michael Ross, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom's corporate engagement team. "Hopefully Costco will be a trendsetter." But those efforts are making retail pharmacies a new ground zero in the fight over abortion access. Costco got swift criticism from one of its home-state senators, Washington Democrat Patty Murray, for accommodating "far-right extremists" she said were whipsawing the availability of basic care. Between the lines: Pharmacy chains were destined to be involved after the Food and Drug Administration in 2023 allowed retailers to apply for certification to dispense mifepristone, which is part of a two-step protocol used to medically end a pregnancy through 10 weeks. The drug, which FDA first approved in 2000, has traditionally been dispensed at doctors' offices, hospitals or health clinics. But as states across the country restrict abortion, mifepristone prescribing via telehealth has significantly increased. State of play: Costco says it won't pursue approval to dispense mifepristone because demand for the drug is low. The company's understanding is that patients generally get the drug directly from their medical providers, it said in an email. But the decision, which reportedly came after more than a year of deliberations, is one anti-abortion groups have been pushing for. It extends beyond Costco's membership, since nonmembers can fill prescriptions at its drug counters. Last August, Alliance Defending Freedom led a coalition including thousands of Costco cardholders, financial advisers and consultants in urging the retailer not to offer mifepristone. "Costco ... needs to carefully consider the cost of alienating its diverse customers and potential customers just to boost one product in its pharmacy, which is one of its ancillary lines of business," their letter said. That pressure campaign followed New York City Comptroller Brad Lander (D) sending letters to Costco and other pharmacies, advocating that they get clearance to fill prescriptions where legal. "Making mifepristone available benefits customers and employees and increases sales, while also generating long-term shareholder value," Lander wrote to Costco last year. But abortion foes have allied with investor groups like Inspire Investing to warn Costco, Walmart, Albertsons, Kroger and other retail pharmacy operators as well as drug distributors to stay out of divisive political issues that could alienate customers and investors. "We say, OK, mifepristone may be a very small part of your sales, but look at all of the different backlash that you might be introducing, the different regulatory backlash from the Trump admin and the legal risk," Ross said. The Trump administration, Congress or the Supreme Court could still change requirements around the drug. The Supreme Court in 2024 preserved access to mifepristone, deciding that doctors who asked justices to stop the FDA's relaxation of restrictions around the drug didn't have standing, without ruling on the merits. In May, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd directed the FDA to "to review the latest data on mifepristone" — a move that could restrict future availability. Other large pharmacy chains like Walmart, Kroger and Albertsons have not made public decisions on mifepristone dispensing. Kroger told Axios it's still reviewing the FDA's mifepristone drug safety program and will continue to align dispensing practices with federal and state law. Walmart declined to comment, and Albertsons did not respond. The other side: Curbing mifepristone access could make it even harder for women to access safe abortions, as well as miscarriage care, for which it has an off-label use. "By refusing to offer mifepristone, Costco has chosen politics over science, fear over facts, and ideology over the rights of its customers," Mini Timmaraju, CEO of advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement last Friday. What we're watching: How Walgreens and CVS respond to pressure to stop filling mifepristone prescriptions.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Same-sex marriage has overwhelming support. Supreme Court should let ruling stand.
We have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across America. LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with those they love. As national news outlets recently picked up the story about a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the future of equal marriage for same-sex couples, both of us received a barrage of messages from worried friends and colleagues. We understand people are concerned about their families and children, or about whether they'll be able to legally marry in the future. In the tumult of these times, nearly everyone is anxious about how to protect themselves and their loved ones. Let's set the foundation about where we are. Marriage equality is the law of the land and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. The landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling from 2015 affirmed the protections in our U.S. Constitution saying that people, not the government, should be able to decide whom they marry, and that equal protection requires access to legal marriage for same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as others. It was rightly decided under our constitutional due process and equal protection principles. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress, enshrines respect for those marriages under federal and state law. Over 823,000 married same-sex couples live in the US A recent report from The Williams Institute found that there are more than 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States as of June, and they are raising nearly 300,000 children. These couples have married because they love each other, they want legal formalization of their mutual commitment and responsibility, and they want to provide stable, protective homes for their children. While we should take seriously any petition to the Supreme Court, the one submitted recently is especially weak. It comes from the lawyers for Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples 10 years ago and instructed her office to do the same. Eventually, a court granted damages to a couple who were repeatedly denied a license. Davis has been to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals three times about the couples' suit and lost each time, and the entire 6th Circuit ‒ including six judges appointed by President Donald Trump ‒ has unanimously denied her a rehearing. Opinion: What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying. Davis' team has requested review from the Supreme Court, of those damages and of the Obergefell ruling, which is her right. However, given that the issues that Davis claims need resolution are narrow and already well settled, it would be highly unusual for the Supreme Court to grant review. The freedom to marry for same-sex couples remains extremely popular. People from all walks of life, across faith groups and across the political spectrum continue to express strong support. A majority of people in every single state are supportive, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Recent Gallup polling found that 68% of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples, and a survey conducted by three right-of-center polling firms tracked support at 72%, including 56% of Republicans. Former opponents now support same-sex marriage Individuals and entities that were some of the strongest opponents of marriage equality have evolved. Two decades ago, the two of us worked together in Massachusetts to win and protect marriage in the very first state. Then-Gov. Mitt Romney fought hard to ensure the ruling never took effect. And yet in 2022, Romney voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, stating that "Congress − and I − esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.' In 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played a lead role in undoing marriage equality in California via Proposition 8. Fourteen years later, the church also backed the Respect for Marriage Act. For so many Americans, this isn't about politics. It's about letting people live their lives. Same-sex couples build families and contribute to their communities just like anyone else. That's the reality, and it's working. Opinion: Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering We now have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across the country. In 2024, the nonpartisan RAND released a study about marriage for same-sex couples. The think tank found many positive outcomes, including for children, health, financial well-being and relationship stability. The researchers pressure-tested opponents' claims of harms to society, like rising divorce rates or lower marriage rates, and found 'no empirical basis for concerns that allowing same-sex couples to marry has negatively affected different-sex couples and families.' We've never taken our eye off this ball, and we never will. We will learn as early as this fall what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with the request from Davis' lawyers. Should the high court grant review, LGBTQ+ legal and advocacy groups and millions of Americans from all walks of life will engage to protect what we all long fought for and the overwhelming majority of people support. For decades, we've seen how finding common ground on why marriage matters for families and communities − and why it is good for everyone, regardless of who they are or whom they love − moves our community forward. Together, we can remind the country that LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with the people they love, to care for their families, and to raise their kids in safety and dignity. Mary Bonauto, a senior director at GLAD Law, argued the first marriage win in Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and Obergefell v. Hodges before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. Marc Solomon, a partner at Civitas Public Affairs Group, was national campaign director of Freedom to Marry. He is the author of "Winning Marriage: The Inside Story of How Same-Sex Couples Took On the Politicians and Pundits – and Won."
