WATCH: Justice Alito Eviscerates Attorney’s Argument On Trans Athletes In Girls’ Sports

The Supreme Court heard high-stakes oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could reshape the future of girls’ and women’s athletics nationwide, and one exchange in particular lit up the courtroom. During arguments over whether states can bar biological males from competing in girls’ school sports, Samuel Alito sharply dismantled an attorney’s attempt to frame such bans as unlawful discrimination under federal law.

The case centers on challenges to state laws that restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to biological females. From the outset, the Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of those claims, repeatedly questioning whether states lack the authority to draw sex-based distinctions in athletics.

Alito zeroed in on that tension with a pointed hypothetical.

He asked whether a school with separate boys’ and girls’ track teams could bar a student who is biologically male, has male genetics and reproductive organs, and has never taken puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or undergone surgery, but nevertheless identifies as a woman.

“Can the school say, no, you cannot participate on the girls team?” Alito asked.

The attorney responded that the school could bar the athlete, but attempted to avoid conceding that doing so would constitute discrimination based on transgender status. Alito wasn’t having it.

WATCH:

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito just EVISCERATED the attorney’s argument for a transgender male trying to compete in girl’s sports

Every word. Masterful.

ALITO: Let’s say a school has a boy and girl track team. A male student with no puberty blockers or female… pic.twitter.com/Doejb48Jg4

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

“Well, the reason I’m asking has to do with discrimination on the basis of transgender status,” he pressed. “So what you seem to be saying is, yes, it is permissible for the school to discriminate on the basis of transgender status.”

The attorney attempted to reframe the issue, arguing that the real question was whether the athlete possessed a sex-based biological advantage that would make participation unfair to female competitors, rather than whether the student’s gender identity should control eligibility.

From Alito’s perspective, however, that answer exposed the contradiction at the heart of the legal challenge. If a biological male identifying as a girl is barred from competing on a girls’ team, Alito noted, then that individual is undeniably being treated differently based on transgender status. The only remaining question is whether such treatment is legally justified.

That exchange became one of the most revealing moments of the hearing, laying bare the difficulty opponents of the bans face when trying to reconcile claims of discrimination with the reality of sex-based athletic competition.

Other justices echoed similar concerns throughout the session, focusing on physical differences between males and females, competitive equity, and whether courts or state legislatures are better suited to regulate school sports.

Attorneys challenging the laws warned that upholding them would legitimize discrimination and deny transgender students access to educational and social opportunities tied to athletics.

No ruling was issued Tuesday. A decision is expected later this year, likely by June.