Law & Principles

As U.S. Supreme Court transgender cases loom, Oklahoma officials defend women

January 13, 2026

Ray Carter

With the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments this week in two major cases that will determine if states can prohibit men from participating in women’s athletics, Oklahoma officials are urging the court to uphold those state laws and protect the rights of women.

“There’s a clear biological difference between men and women. It’s just common sense,” said Gov. Kevin Stitt. “Men have greater muscle mass, larger and denser bones, bigger lungs, and wider airways. These advantages make it unfair for women to compete against biological males on the field, in the pool, on the track, or on the court. Our daughters, sisters, and teammates deserve a level playing field, where their hard work and talent can shine uninhibited by unfair advantages.”

In Little v. Hecox, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to determine if laws that prohibit men (who identify as “transgender women”) from participating in women’s sports violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the court is being asked to decide if state laws that designate girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on sex violate the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972.

Oklahoma law includes the Save Women’s Sports Act, which states, “Athletic teams designated for ‘females,’ ‘women,’ or ‘girls’ shall not be open to students of the male sex.”

In 2023, Stitt also issued an executive order that defined sex-based terms like “female,” “woman,” and “mother” biologically.

“Oklahoma stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Idaho and West Virginia,” Stitt said. “Let’s protect women’s sports nationwide, for good. In Oklahoma, we stand with female athletes. In Oklahoma, we protect women’s sports.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has also joined with attorneys general from across the nation to file amicus briefs in both cases, urging the court to uphold the right of states to bar men from women’s athletic events and spaces.

The brief filed in the Little v. Hecox case included officials from 26 states, including Drummond.

“In sports, equal access means a level playing field. And a level playing field usually means sports teams divided by sex so that girls can compete against other girls. Indeed, providing separate leagues for boys and girls has worked magic, increasing the participation of girls and women in sports by nearly 1,100% over the last half century,” the brief stated. “… For this reason, amici States all have laws or policies like Idaho’s that restrict girls’ sports teams to biological females. Basing the distinction on biology rather than gender identity makes sense because it is the differences in biology—not gender identity—that call for separate teams in the first place: Whatever their gender identity, biological males are, on average, stronger and faster than biological females.”

Officials from Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming signed onto the brief in the Idaho case.

Those officials noted that states are routinely facing legal challenges to common-sense restrictions on male participation in women’s sports.

“Amici States are regularly hauled into court and must bring with them an army of biologists, endocrinologists, and physicians just to defend policies that have long been viewed as commonsense ways to protect and promote flourishing for women and girls,” the brief stated. “Female-only basketball and swimming teams. Female-only locker rooms and showers. Female-only bathrooms.”

The amicus brief in the West Virginia v. B.P.J. case also included officials from 26 states, including Drummond.

“The Amici States all have laws and policies—like West Virginia’s Sports Act—that bar biological males from trying out for women’s and girls’ sports teams or competing in women’s and girls’ athletic competitions. Those laws reflect basic biology; they also reflect the fact that ignoring basic biology robs women and girls of an equal opportunity to compete for athletic accolades,” the brief stated. “Title IX does the same thing. For the last fifty years, it has guaranteed women and girls equal access to athletic opportunities. But decisions, like the panel’s opinion below, that radically reinterpret Title IX do the opposite: turning a statute designed to give women and girls equal access into a law that actually bars States from doing exactly that whenever a biological male identifies as female.”

Officials from Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming signed onto the West Virginia v. B.P.J.  brief.

The brief noted that the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, referred to as B.P.J., is a walking advertisement for why bans on men in women’s athletics were instituted.

“Being a biological male makes B.P.J. differently situated than biological girls both physiologically and performance-wise,” the brief stated. “Indeed, this spring, B.P.J. has sensationally outperformed nearly all other competitors, displacing hundreds of girls in track events. … Because B.P.J. is not similarly situated to the female athletes on the girls’ cross-country and track teams, B.P.J.’s Title IX claim cannot succeed.”