Supreme Court Review of Transgender Athlete Rights Centers on 15‑Year‑Old Track Star
By Your Name, Senior Correspondent – January 13, 2026
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court will sit to consider two high‑profile lawsuits that could reshape the legal landscape for transgender participation in women’s athletics. At the heart of one of those cases is Becky Pepper‑Jackson, a 15‑year‑old middle‑distance runner from Texas who has become an unexpected focal point in a debate that intertwines civil rights, federal policy, and the future of school sports. In an exclusive interview with The Washington Post reporter Ann E. Marimow, Pepper‑Jackson described the personal stakes of a legal battle that has already drawn national attention.
A Brief Overview of the Cases Before the Court
The docket for the Tuesday hearing contains two separate petitions for certiorari, each originating from a different circuit court decision but both addressing the same fundamental question: whether public schools may exclude transgender girls from competing on girls’ teams under the authority of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
- Pepper‑Jackson v. Texas Education Agency – Filed in the Fifth Circuit, this case challenges a Texas state regulation that bans transgender girls from participating in female sports categories. The regulation, enacted in 2022, was defended by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the state’s Attorney General as a measure to “preserve fair competition.” The plaintiffs, a group of four transgender students led by Pepper‑Jackson, argue that the ban violates Title IX’s prohibition against sex‑based discrimination and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Miller v. Department of Education – Originating in the Ninth Circuit, this suit contests a federal guidance issued in 2023 by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). The guidance interpreted Title IX to require that schools allow transgender students to compete consistent with their gender identity, unless a school can demonstrate that such inclusion would cause a “material disadvantage” to cisgender female athletes. The DOE’s position was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, prompting the plaintiffs—represented by a coalition of parents and advocacy groups—to seek review by the nation’s highest court.
Both petitions ask the Supreme Court to resolve a split among the federal appellate courts and to clarify the scope of Title IX as it applies to gender identity. The Court’s decision will either cement a uniform national standard or leave the regulatory patchwork to persist across states.
The Personal Narrative Behind the Legal Fight
Becky Pepper‑Jackson’s involvement in the case stems from a series of events that began when she entered middle school in 2021. Assigned male at birth, Pepper‑Jackson came out as a transgender girl at age 13 and began competing in girls’ track events at the local public school. Her performances quickly drew notice; by the end of her freshman year she had qualified for the state championships in the 800‑meter run.
“Running is the one place I feel completely myself,” Pepper‑Jackson told Marimow in a quiet hallway of her high school. “When the school told me I couldn’t race with the girls, it felt like they were telling me I didn’t belong anywhere.”
The school’s compliance with the Texas ban forced Pepper‑Jackson to sit out the 2024 season, a loss that not only deprived her of scholarship‑level competition but also raised questions about her eligibility for collegiate athletics. Her family, together with the nonprofit advocacy organization Trans Youth Equality, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the state’s policy constituted unlawful sex discrimination.
While the case was pending, Pepper‑Jackson continued to train independently, posting her workouts on social media and garnering a modest following of supporters who praised her resilience.
“She’s become a symbol for a lot of kids who are fighting for the right to simply play,” said Maya Patel, director of Trans Youth Equality. “Her story is personal, but the legal principle at stake is national.”
Legal Foundations: Title IX, Sex Discrimination, and Gender Identity
Title IX, enacted in 1972, states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in…any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Historically, the statute has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination based on biological sex. However, the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County—which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII—has prompted a cascade of litigation seeking to extend that reasoning to Title IX.
Proponents of inclusion argue that the *Bostock* rationale applies equally to school sports: a policy that excludes a transgender girl from a girls’ team does so because of her gender identity, which is inextricably linked to sex. They contend that Title IX’s purpose—to ensure equal educational opportunities—cannot be fulfilled if a subset of students is barred from competition.
Opponents, largely represented by state officials and a coalition of “fair‑play” advocacy groups, argue that biological differences—particularly in puberty‑related physiological development—create a competitive advantage that undermines the integrity of women’s sports. They maintain that Title IX was never intended to address gender identity and that Congress would need to amend the statute to do so.
The Supreme Court’s prior rulings on Title IX have been narrowly focused on issues such as sexual harassment and the rights of pregnant athletes. No definitive ruling has yet addressed the intersection of Title IX and gender identity, leaving the current cases as a potential watershed moment.
Political and Cultural Context
The litigation arrives at a moment of heightened political polarization over transgender rights. Since 2022, over 30 states have enacted legislation restricting transgender participation in school sports, while a comparable number of states have passed laws affirming inclusion. The federal government’s 2023 DOE guidance was itself a direct response to a series of state bans, positioning the executive branch as an advocate for transgender athletes.
Public opinion polls from 2025 show a nation divided: while a majority of Americans support the right of transgender individuals to use restrooms matching their gender identity, only about 48 % believe they should be allowed to compete on sports teams that align with that identity. The split is more pronounced along partisan lines, with Democratic voters favoring inclusion and Republican voters expressing concerns about fairness.
The cases also have implications for collegiate athletics, where the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has adopted a policy permitting transgender athletes to compete after a year of hormone therapy. A Supreme Court ruling that narrows Title IX’s reach could pressure the NCAA to revisit its standards, potentially affecting scholarship allocations and recruitment pipelines.
Potential Outcomes and Their Ripple Effects
Three broad scenarios dominate analysts’ predictions:
- Affirmation of inclusion – The Court upholds the lower courts’ rulings favoring the DOE guidance. All public schools receiving federal funds would be required to allow transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity, likely prompting a wave of challenges to state bans and spurring legislative action at the federal level.
- Deference to states – The Court sides with Texas and other states, holding that Title IX does not extend to gender identity. The existing patchwork of state policies would remain, and further state‑level restrictions could follow in other public arenas.
- Limited, split decision – The Court narrows its holding (e.g., applying only to interscholastic competition). Schools would need to craft nuanced policies, and litigation would continue in lower courts for years.
In every scenario, the Court’s reasoning will be scrutinized for its treatment of *Bostock* and its interpretation of “sex” under federal civil‑rights statutes, a development that could reverberate beyond athletics to employment, housing, and education.
The Human Element: What This Means for Becky and Her Peers
For Becky Pepper‑Jackson, the day the justices convene in the courtroom is more than a legal milestone; it is a personal crossroads.
“I just want to be able to line up at the start line with the rest of the girls,” she said, eyes fixed on the track that lies a few blocks from the courthouse. “If the Supreme Court says it’s okay, then maybe I can finally focus on my times instead of the politics.”
Her teammates, many of whom are also navigating their own identities, echo the sentiment. Senior runner Maya Rodriguez, who has trained alongside Pepper‑Jackson since middle school, noted, “We’re all competing for the same medals. The rules should be about the sport, not about who we are outside the stadium.”
The case also spotlights the broader community of transgender youth who, according to a 2024 report by the Williams Institute, represent roughly 1.4 % of the U.S. school‑age population. For many, the outcome will determine whether they can pursue athletic aspirations without fear of exclusion.
Looking Ahead
As the nation watches the Supreme Court’s deliberations, the intersection of civil rights, sports, and federal authority will be laid bare. The justices’ questions during oral arguments—ranging from the scientific evidence on physiological differences to the statutory language of Title IX—suggest a deep engagement with both the legal and empirical dimensions of the issue.
Regardless of the final judgment, the cases underscore a broader societal reckoning: how a century‑old civil‑rights law adapts to evolving understandings of gender. For Becky Pepper‑Jackson and the countless athletes who share her journey, the Court’s decision will either open the lane to a more inclusive future or reinforce the barriers that have already forced many to run in the shadows.
