For the past 5 years, both Chris Reykdal and Bob Ferguson have falsely claimed that a 2020 US Supreme Court Employment Law case called Bostock applied to a federal Education Law called Title IX. Reykdal and Ferguson repeatedly used Bostock to support their ridiculous claim that Title IX required allowing boys to compete in girls sports – when in fact Title IX is about protecting the right of biological girls to their own sports leagues and private spaces and thus prohibits boys from competing in girls sports. Based on their upside down interpretation of Title IX, boys pretending to be girls have been allowed to win Girls State Track Championships in Washington, Oregon, California, Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut. Now, their Bostock “House of Cards” is about to come crashing down. The truth is about to come out and their past 5 years of lies is about to be exposed.
On July 3, 2025, the US Supreme Court announced that, in October, they will decide two cases - both of which prohibited states from protecting female sports from domination by male athletes. But the Supreme Court will also decide much more than that. Their ruling will also decide once and for all the meaning of Title IX and whether boys can be allowed in girls locker rooms and bathrooms. Their ruling will also clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment and whether boys pretending to be girls are a “protected class” under the 14th Amendment. In this article, we will look at each of these two cases and explain why this coming US Supreme Court session could be the beginning of the end of the Trans Drug Cult here in Washington state.
Background
Both Idaho and West Virginia passed laws prohibiting boys from competing in girls sports and entering girls private spaces. However, controversial circuit court rulings stopped enforcement of those both of those laws. Ironically, the Fourth Circuit court in the West Virginia case, called West Virginia V. B.P.J., ruled that Title IX allowed boys to compete in girls sports. By contrast, the Ninth Circuit court in the Idaho case, called Little v Hecox, ruled that the 14th Amendment allowed boys to compete in girls sports. Several other Circuit Courts found that Title IX prohibited boys from competing in girls sports. In addition, the US Supreme Court in August 2024 in the case of Tennessee v Cardona ruled that Title IX protected the right of girls to their own sports leagues and private spaces. So it is highly likely that the Supreme Court will overturn both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit decisions in October. We will review both the West Virginia and Idaho case to better understand their similarities and differences.
West Virginia v B.P.J.
In this case, the Supreme Court will answer two legal questions:
(1) Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls and boys sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth?
(2) Whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys and girls sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth?
Here is the link to the case files for this Petition:
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/west-virginia-v-b-p-j-2-2/
This case file includes links to a dozen Amicus briefs filed in this case.
West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey thanked the Supreme Court for taking up the state’s case: “I am pleased that the Supreme Court is taking up West Virginia V. B.P.J., a case I worked tirelessly on as Attorney General. I am optimistic that after hearing the case, the Supreme Court will restore sanity to athletics and allow West Virginia to enforce its common sense law that prevents boys from competing in girl’s sports.”
Here is a brief history of this case
West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys and co-ed teams but not girls teams. This separation made sense, the Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females."
A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. The district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State under both the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX. Sadly, a divided Fourth Circuit panel reversed the District Court and found in favor of B.P.J. who then beat and displaced hundreds of girls in track and field.
One of the Fourth Circuit judges, Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expanding the scope of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and upending the essence of Title IX." He hoped this Supreme Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance."
Here is a link to the most recent brief filed by West Virginia on June 23, 2025 and explaining why the Supreme Court should take up this case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-43/363722/20250623141402813_BPJ%20Supplemental%20Brief.pdf
Here are quotes from this brief:
“The State of West Virginia and 26 other States have confronted a serious social debate and concluded that biological boys should not compete on girls’ athletics teams.”
“The Fourth Circuit’s decision here relied in part on circuit precedent from outside the athletics context that mistakenly invoked Bostock to justify an onerous standard under Title IX. “
(My note: Bostock was a 2020 Employment Law case that has also been mistakenly applied to Title IX by Chris Reykdal and Bob Ferguson. Title IX is an Education law and not an Employment law).
“The decision below has since been used to justify the same misguided approach elsewhere. See California v. DOJ filed June 9, 2025).”
(My note: California v DOJ is a lawsuit challenging the Trump DOJ Taskforce attempt to enforce Title IX. The California Attorney General, like Chris Reykdal and Bob Ferguson mistakenly claims that Bostock applies to Title IX – despite the fact that more than a dozen federal courts have stated that Bostock does not apply to Title IX. Once the Supreme Court clarifies Bostock, that will be the end of Chris Reykdal and Bob Ferguson’s ridiculous legal argument for allowing boys to take over girls sports.)
“Skrmetti leaves open a further question affecting the equal-protection analysis: whether transgender persons constitute a quasi-suspect class.”
(My note: Skrmetti is a recent Supreme Court decision ruling that Tennessee can ban toxic Trans drugs from being given to minors. While three Supreme Court Justices wrote that Transgenderism is not a protected class, it was not part of the Skrmetti decision but it will have to be answered this Fall because both cases involve the 14th Amendment protected class issue. It has been more than 70 years since the Supreme Court has created a new protected class. It is likely that the Court will rule that Transgenderism is not a protected class).
“Girls deserve a safe, fair playing field today—not years from now—and the ruling’s present harm to women and girls is stark. When biological males compete on women’s teams, female athletes lose championships, opportunities, and scholarships and suffer serious harms and safety risks.”
Little v Hecox
In this case, the Supreme Court will answer one legal question:
Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Here is the link to the case files for this Petition:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-38.html
This case file includes links to several Amicus briefs filed in this case.
Here is a brief history of this case
Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life-including sports. Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors-on the field and on the winners' podium.
The Idaho Legislature addressed that injustice by enacting the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify. The Act-one of 25 such state laws around the country-is consistent with longstanding government policies preserving women's and girls' sports due to the "average real differences" between the sexes.
Breaking with this Court's precedents, its own case law, other circuit decisions, and biological reality, the Ninth Circuit panel here upheld an injunction against the Act because it prevents "transgender women and girls"-meaning males who identify as women and girls-from competing in "women's student athletics.
Here is a link to the most recent brief filed by Idaho on June 23, 2025 and explaining why the Supreme Court should take up this case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-38/363712/20250623132559480_Hecox%20Supplemental%20Brief%20of%20Petitioner.pdf
Here are quotes from this brief:
“Whether designating sports teams based on biological sex violates the Equal Protection Clause is a critically important issue that has been roiling the lower courts, frustrating female student athletes, and confounding every level of government for years.”
“The movement to protect girls’ and women’s sports has kept making progress. In recent months both the federal government and the NCAA have announced policies excluding male athletes from female competitions, and the number of states with laws like Idaho’s has now reached 27… But the Ninth Circuit and many other courts still deny female athletes a level playing field, requiring them to compete against biologically male athletes. As a result, women and girls have missed out on hundreds of medals, podium spots, and opportunities to compete in their own sports.”
“This Court’s cases have long regarded sex as an “immutable characteristic,” Frontiero v. Richardson, (1973), defined by “our most basic biological differences,” Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, (2001). Those differences “between men and women” are “real,” “enduring,” “inherent,”and “physical.”
“Despite the clarity of the Court’s precedents on this point, the lower courts remain divided. The en banc Eleventh Circuit applies this Court’s objective, biological understanding of sex to hold that a policy that distinguishes between “biological boys” and “biological girls” is a “sex-based classification.”
“In contrast, the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have all held that such laws discriminate against those who identify as transgender by treating “sex” as a subjectively defined term. If sex is objective, then biological males who identify as female are not “similarly situated” with biological females “in all relevant respects” because “biological sex is the relevant respect.”
“Bottom line, when sex is defined objectively, states that assign athletic teams by sex should prevail in equal-protection challenges. Conversely, if sex is defined subjectively, such that biological males who identify as female are treated as females for equal-protection purposes, courts have concluded that these males are similarly situated with females.”
“Courts have also split over “whether gender identity or transgender identity are quasi-suspect classifications. Two circuits, the Fourth and the Ninth, have held that gender identity and transgender identity are quasi-suspect classifications. On the flip side, the Sixth and Tenth Circuits have held that they are not. “
“The women and girls who are missing out on medals, podium spots, and opportunities to compete in their own sports deserve answers sooner rather than later… By now, 27 states have passed laws to correct the injustice of male athletes competing against women and girls in their own sports. This Court should promptly grant this petition and the one in B.P.J., reverse the lower courts in both cases, and restore fair competition consistent with the recently announced policies of the NCAA and the United States. “
Evidence the US Supreme Court will rule in favor of the plain meaning of Title IX
On August 16, 2024, in an opinion combining the cases, Dept of Education v Louisiana and Cardona v Tennessee, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that three provisions of the Biden Final Rule were illegal. These were:
#1 The requirement that Trans Rights replace Girls Rights.
#2 That Trans males be allowed in Girls Bathrooms & Locker Rooms.
#3 Requiring the use of specific pronouns violates the First Amendment rights of teachers & students.
Here is a link to their order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
Here is a quote from this decision: “All Members of the Court accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity… (2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity)... “
On January 9, 2025, Reykdal and Ferguson’s false interpretation of Title IX was rejected by a federal court ruling in Tennessee v Cardona which vacated the 2024 Biden Title IX Final Rule – returning all 50 states to the original meaning of Title IX – that the term “sex” means biological sex and not gender identity. Here is a link to this 15 page ruling: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2025/2025-1-title-ix.pdf
Here are quotes from this ruling: “When Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female… As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of “on the basis of sex” to include “gender identity” turns Title IX on its head. While Title IX sought to level the playing field between men and women, it is rife with exceptions that allow males and females to be separated based on the enduring physical differences between the sexes… the entire point of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex—throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless.”
How will the Supreme Court decisions this fall affect our girls here in Washington state?
Sadly, even after the Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of Title IX, it is likely that Reykdal and Ferguson will continue to dig in their heels. After all, the Supreme Court ruled against DEI in 2023 but Reykdal and Ferguson continue to ignore the important ruling in Students v Harvard. It will likely take a protracted legal battle with the US Department of Justice taking Reykdal all the way to the Supreme Court to force him into compliance.
The good news is that these Supreme Court rulings should make it more obvious to Independent voters that both Reykdal and Ferguson have been lying about Title IX for the past 8 years. Still the only way the truth will ever get to Independent voters will be if we tell them. This is one more reason we need to build our own statewide network of community news websites here in Washington state.
We will be reviewing our plan for starting community news website and the other steps we will be taking to replace Reykdal, Ferguson and their accomplices at our next Washington Parents Network meeting from 4 to 5 pm this Sunday. If you would like the link to our next meeting, send us an email to
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed. Director,
Washington Parents Network
