WVU Law School professor weighs in on West Virginia’s SCOTUS case

Video is previous coverage.

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (WBOY) — Earlier this month, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey announced that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of West Virginia v. B.P.J., which is set to determine if the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act and similar laws are constitutional.

Sponsored

class="wp-block-image size-large">

This particular case involves a transgender Bridgeport student and has been ongoing since 2021.

The Save Women’s Sports Act requires student athletes to compete in the division based on their assigned gender at birth. B.P.J. was in middle school when the lawsuit was originally filed and was assigned male at birth, but is transgender and identifies as a girl.

B.P.J., who is an incoming sophomore, has been temporarily allowed to compete on the Bridgeport High School girls’ track team thanks to a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed the Save Women’s Sports Act unconstitutional.

B.P.J. recently placed third in the girls’ shot put at the 2025 West Virginia State Track meet, which prompted political statements from fellow athletes.

GOP Politicians from the state have been asking for the Supreme Court to hear this case for several years. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Tennessee law that restricted gender affirming care for children, McCuskey submitted a supplemental filing asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case of West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act.

12 News spoke with Professor John Taylor from West Virginia University on the possible implications this case may have.

“Well, the court only decides to hear about 80 cases a year, so they only take things that they think are significant issues. Obviously, the question of transgender participation in athletics has been sort of a hot-button thing the last couple years. […] The legal issue in both these cases is essentially: do we think that excluding transgender girls and women from participation in girls’ and women’s sports is a kind of unlawful discrimination?” Taylor said.

The main dispute regarding West Virginia’s law about transgender participation in sports stems from the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection as well as Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination within educational institutions.

West Virginia State officials argue that the Save Women’s Sports Act protects equality in girls’ sports but does not prevent any individuals from trying out for male-specific or co-ed teams.

“Both the law in Idaho and the one in West Virginia are pretty similar in that both of them basically say across the board, […] if you are born as a biological male and you become a transgender girl or woman, you cannot participate on a sports team with biological girls. It does not work the other way, either in Idaho or in West Virginia. Should a biological girl who identifies as a transgender male want to play with the males’ team, the statute says that’s fine,” Taylor said.

After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the Save Women’s Sports Act unconstitutional, West Virginia officials argued that their decision threatens the integrity of equal athletic competition for women and girls.

Taylor said that once the Supreme Court reaches a ruling, it could have potential implications across the nation.

“When they (The Supreme Court) decide to take something, almost always is trying to lay down a rule that is going to have some general implications and so I think they are meaning to sort of weigh in to some extent on these kinds of laws generally,” Taylor said.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear this case during its October 2025 term.