B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1078, Doc: 187, Filed: 04/16/2024 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that categorically excludes a transgender girl from participating on a girls' sports team violates Title IX as applied to an individual who takes puberty-blocking medication and has not undergone endogenous male puberty, because it constitutes discrimination 'on the basis of sex' and denies her the benefits of an educational program.
Facts:
- B.P.J. is a 13-year-old transgender girl who was assigned male at birth.
- She has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade and has a gender support plan at her school.
- As part of her medical treatment for gender dysphoria, B.P.J. began taking puberty-blocking medication at the onset of puberty (Tanner Stage 2).
- This treatment prevented B.P.J. from experiencing the physiological changes associated with male puberty, such as elevated levels of circulating testosterone.
- B.P.J. also receives estrogen hormone therapy, causing her to develop secondary sex characteristics consistent with an adolescent female.
- West Virginia enacted the 'Save Women's Sports Act,' which mandates that athletic teams designated for females are not open to students of the 'male sex,' defined as an individual whose biological sex at birth is male.
- B.P.J. sought to join her middle school's cross country and track teams for girls.
- The West Virginia law prevented B.P.J. from participating on these teams.
Procedural Posture:
- B.P.J., by her next friend and mother, filed suit against the West Virginia State Board of Education and other state and local officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
- The complaint alleged that West Virginia's 'Save Women's Sports Act' violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
- The State of West Virginia intervened as a defendant to defend the law.
- The district court (a court of first instance) granted B.P.J.'s motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing her to participate on the girls' cross country and track teams.
- Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the Act was constitutional and did not violate Title IX.
- The district court entered a final judgment dismissing B.P.J.'s case.
- B.P.J. (appellant) appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that defines eligibility for girls' sports teams based on 'biological sex determined at birth' violate Title IX as applied to a transgender girl who takes puberty-blocking medication and has not undergone male puberty?
Opinions:
Majority - Heytens
Yes. Applying the West Virginia law to B.P.J. violates Title IX because it treats her worse than similarly situated individuals on the basis of sex and denies her meaningful athletic opportunities. Citing circuit precedent from Grimm and the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bostock, the court held that discrimination based on transgender status is discrimination 'on the basis of sex' under Title IX. The Act subjects B.P.J. to discrimination by singling out transgender girls for exclusion; a transgender boy would be permitted to play on a boys' team. Furthermore, B.P.J. suffers cognizable harm, as the 'choice' to play on the boys' team is illusory and would contradict her medical treatment, social transition, and potentially expose her to unfair competition. The court rejected the argument that Title IX regulations permitting sex-separated sports authorize this exclusion, noting that B.P.J. challenges her categorical exclusion from the team that aligns with her gender identity, not the existence of separate teams. The court also vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the Equal Protection claim, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether excluding B.P.J. is substantially related to the state's interest in competitive fairness.
Dissenting - Agee
No. The West Virginia law does not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause because biological sex is the relevant characteristic for athletic competition, and B.P.J. is not similarly situated to biological girls. The majority's holding turns Title IX on its head, undermining the very opportunities for female athletes it was enacted to protect. The term 'sex' in Title IX, at the time of its enactment, unambiguously referred to biological sex, not gender identity, and under the Spending Clause, states cannot be held liable for conditions of which they had no unambiguous notice. For equal protection purposes, the Act is substantially related to the important government interest of ensuring equal athletic opportunities for females, an interest that is undermined when biological males displace biological females in competition. The majority erroneously expands the Equal Protection Clause and nullifies Title IX's core purpose.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and extends the Fourth Circuit's reasoning from Grimm v. Gloucester County, applying the principle that discrimination against transgender individuals constitutes sex discrimination to the context of school athletics. The ruling creates a deeper circuit split on the legality of state laws restricting transgender athlete participation, increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review. The court's narrow, as-applied holding focuses heavily on the plaintiff's specific medical history (use of puberty blockers), which avoids a broad ruling on all transgender athletes but creates a complex, fact-intensive standard for lower courts to apply in future cases.
