Sotomayor fires back with Barrett’s reasoning in dissent

Sotomayor’s dissent – Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply challenged the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling upholding state bans on transgender girls competing on girls’ school sports teams, using Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s earlier legal reasoning against her in a forceful dissent.

On Tuesday, June 30, Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t just disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision—she turned parts of it into a mirror, throwing Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s own legal logic back at the conservative majority.

The case, West Virginia v. B.P.J. ended with a 6-3 ruling that upheld state laws barring transgender athletes from competing on girls’ school sports teams. While the majority held that states may maintain sex-separated athletic teams, Sotomayor argued the Court was applying constitutional principles inconsistently.

Sotomayor’s dissent landed hard on the majority’s refusal to treat transgender people as a protected class entitled to heightened scrutiny. She acknowledged that B.P.J.’s Title IX claim fails—but not in the way the majority relied on. “I agree that B.P.J.’s Title IX claim fails. although on a narrower basis than that on which the majority relies. As for B.P.J.’s equal protection claim. however. the majority. at this stage of the litigation. gets the answer wrong. ” she wrote.

She then aimed at the framework the majority used to evaluate the equal protection question. In Sotomayor’s view. the Court applied “a form of heightened scrutiny divorced from this Court’s cases.” She argued that under the majority’s approach. the outcome flowed even though the Constitution should require more. “Transgender girls like B.P.J. who wish to play girls’ sports are not protected by the Constitution, even if B.P.J. is correct that neither of the state’s interests is furthered by their exclusion,” Sotomayor wrote. She added that the Equal Protection Clause “demands much more when a state deploys a sex classification to achieve legislative aims.”.

The deeper tension, though, came from how Sotomayor built her dissent. She anchored much of her argument in Barrett’s earlier reasoning from United States v. Skrmetti, a 2025 Supreme Court case that upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

In Skrmetti. Barrett argued that being transgender is not a protected category requiring courts to closely examine every law that affects transgender people. Sotomayor said the new decision shows what that approach can mean in practice. She warned that it allows states to pass laws that look sex-neutral on the surface while still operating in discriminatory ways. “This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious and evolving issues,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development.”.

The ruling didn’t just trigger legal debate—it also set off political celebration online.

President Donald Trump praised the decision on Truth Social. writing. “BIG WIN: The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS. Wow!. That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!!” First lady Melania Trump also supported the outcome. while framing it as compatible with support for LGBTQIA+ Americans. On X, she wrote, “As many of you may know, I fully support the LGBTQIA+ community. But we must also ensure that our female athletes are protected and respected… America. we can support the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and also protect opportunities for female athletes. Respect everyone and keep girls’ sports fair. Both ideals are essential,”.

For civil rights advocates, the celebration was matched by alarm.

During a virtual press conference. GLAD Law attorney Chris Erchull called the Supreme Court’s ruling “terrible news.” He argued that school sports are “not zero sum” and provide benefits that go beyond competition. “One thing I want to be especially critical of is the fact that Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh. in his decision. repeatedly referenced school sports as a zero sum activity. and school sports are not zero sum. ” Erchull said.

Transgender basketball player Maya Blasingame described sports as something far more personal than a rulebook. “Everyone deserves the right to play. Everyone deserves to play. Everyone deserves to have that light in their eye. to find their freedom on their court. on their field and on the ice to build relationships. friendships with community. to learn lessons about determination. resilience and what it means to work towards a goal. ” she said.

Even as they condemned the result, some advocates focused on what the Court did—and did not—decide.

ACLU attorney Joshua Block called the ruling “devastating,” but said its reach is limited. “It’s a very narrow decision; it applies only in the context of sports,” he said. Block added that the Court “didn’t say that transgender discrimination is okay under the Constitution. ” and stressed that protections for the transgender community outside athletics remain intact.

For Sotomayor, the fight wasn’t only about athletics. It was about how constitutional claims get weighed when states draw lines based on sex—and whether the Court’s reasoning holds up when those lines affect transgender students trying to participate in everyday school life.

Sonia Sotomayor Amy Coney Barrett West Virginia v. B.P.J. transgender athletes girls' school sports Title IX Equal Protection Clause Donald Trump Melania Trump GLAD Law Chris Erchull Maya Blasingame ACLU Joshua Block United States v. Skrmetti