NEWYou can now listen to PK Press Club articles!
Attorneys general leading the legal defense of “Saving Women’s Sports” in the ongoing Supreme Court battle over trans athletes are optimistically awaiting the upcoming ruling.
Tuesday’s oral arguments left most experts believing that a majority of the justices appear ready to rule in favor of Idaho and West Virginia’s right to enforce laws aimed at preventing men from participating in women’s sports.
Idaho AG Raul Labrador and West Virginia AG John McCuskey also expect a win, albeit on different terms. McCuskey boldly declared that he expects the court to issue a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of his state.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON PK Press Club
Female athletes in the case speak before the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices heard arguments on challenges to state bans on transgender athletes in women’s sports, January 13, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Olivier Contreras / AFP)
“We all expect this to be a 9-0 decision. We’re right on the facts. We’re right on the Constitution. We’re right on public opinion, but more importantly, we’re right on common sense. And these are the kinds of issues that even conservatives and liberals can agree on,” McCuskey said at a news conference Monday.
“I don’t go into any debate assuming that I’m going to lose anyone. And so, our mission and our goal is to have this case decided in our favor. And we believe very, very strongly in our mission and our goal to have this case decided in our favor. So we’re aiming for a 9-0 decision and we feel really good about it.”
Labrador, however, is not as optimistic, suggesting that some liberal justices will rule against his side, while predicting a victory.
“We’re very optimistic about the decision. At times I even thought we might get a 9-0 decision and I don’t think that’s going to happen,” Labrador told PK Press Club Digital after Tuesday’s hearing. “But I just hope the justices will look at the common sense issues that were brought against the court today and rule in our favor.”
INSIDE SCOTUS HEARING WOULD BE A TURNING POINT IN CULTURAL WAR AGAINST TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS
Justices Kentaji Brown-Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor delivered questions and statements during the hearing that could suggest they will rule in favor of the trans athlete plaintiffs.
During opening arguments in the hearing, Brown-Jackson pressed Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst about the state law intended to protect girls’ and women’s sports.
“I guess I have a hard time understanding how you can say that this law doesn’t classify on the basis of transgender status,” Jackson told Hurst. “The law is expressly intended to ensure that transgender women cannot play on women’s sports teams. So why isn’t there a classification based on transgender status?”
Judge Clarence Thomas was seen slumped in his seat with his hand covering his face during this question from Brown-Jackson, as witnessed by PK Press Club Digital in the courtroom. There were other moments during the hearing where Thomas was seen in the same pose.
Hurst responded to Jackson, arguing that Idaho’s fairness law in women’s sports depends on the student-athlete’s gender, not transgender status.
Jackson continued to press Hurst, asking, “But this treats transgender women differently than cis women, doesn’t it?”
In another case, Jackson asked similar questions of West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams about his state’s Save Women’s Sports Act.
“There’s the overall classification — everyone has to play on a team that is the same sex at birth — but then you have a definition of gender identity that operates within that, which is a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t,” Jackson said.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor cited about 2.8 million people in the United States who identify as transgender and said their rights should be respected even though they make up only a small percentage of the population.
“What percentage is enough?” » asked Sotomayor. “There are 2.8 million transgender people in the United States. That’s a shockingly high number… What makes an underclass meaningful to you? Is it one percent? Five percent? Thirty percent? Fifteen percent?
“Numbers don’t speak for human beings.”
“SAVE WOMEN’S SPORTS” ACTIVISTS REACT TO SUPREME COURT HEARING OF TRANS ATHLETES
Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson (Getty Images)
Labrador told PK Press Club Digital after the hearing that he was surprised by the liberal justices “struggling” with some questions.
“I was actually surprised how the judges, who I suspect won’t be as friendly to our side, were really struggling with the issues that we were putting before the court, and they were trying to find a way to articulate the other side’s position, and even they were having trouble articulating the other side’s position.”
If recent rulings regarding trans rights are any indication, a 9-0 decision would be a tough sell, but a favorable rule for West Virginia and Idaho is still likely.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote on June 18, 2025, upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming medical care for minors. All of the justices voted along partisan lines, with the six conservative justices voting to uphold the ban and the three liberal justices voting against it.
But in an August 2024 ruling on whether former President Joe Biden’s administration should be granted an emergency request to implement parts of a new rule that includes nondiscrimination protections for transgender students under Title IX, the court voted 5-4 to overturn the request.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissenting, agreed with the three liberal justices and the Biden administration that the lower courts’ rulings were “overbroad.”
The request would have authorized biological men in women’s restrooms, locker rooms and dormitories in 10 states where state and local rules are in place to prevent it.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PK Press Club APP
A decision in this case is expected no later than June.
