← NewsAll
Justice Alito asks attorney to define 'woman' in transgender sports case
Summary
During Supreme Court oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked counsel for transgender woman Lindsay Hecox whether the court has a definition of 'boy,' 'girl,' 'man,' or 'woman.' Attorney Kathleen Hartnett said the court does not have a definition and that they are treating the statute's terms as defined while arguing the statute's application raises an equal protection question.
Content
Justice Samuel Alito pressed an attorney during Supreme Court oral argument about discrimination on the basis of transgender status and how schools separate teams into boys and girls. The exchange centered on whether determining an equal protection claim requires a legal definition of terms like "boy," "girl," "man," and "woman." Kathleen Hartnett, representing Lindsay Hecox, agreed schools may have separate teams and said the court does not have a definition for those terms in this context.
Key exchanges:
- Alito asked whether a school may have separate teams for students classified as boys and for students classified as girls; Hartnett agreed that it may.
- Alito asked whether an equal protection challenge requires an understanding of what it means to be a boy, girl, man, or woman; Hartnett agreed that such an understanding is relevant.
- When Alito asked what that definition is, Hartnett said the court does not have a definition and that they are relying on how the state or statute defines the terms.
- Hartnett noted that, under the statute at issue, Lindsay Hecox is identified as a birth sex male and is excluded from women’s teams, and that the challenge focuses on whether that exclusion creates an equal protection problem.
- Alito questioned how a court can determine discrimination on the basis of sex without a settled definition of sex for equal protection purposes.
Summary:
The exchange focused on whether courts must define sex terms to resolve equal protection claims about school team exclusions and how the statute classifies individuals in the case. Undetermined at this time.
