On August 15, 2024, the U.S. chapter of Women’s Declaration International filed its second amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is nearly identical to the brief we filed the previous day in the case of Little, et al. v. Hecox, et al. (because the cases are nearly identical, factually and legally). This time, the case is West Virginia, et al. v. B.P.J., et al. In this case, the state of West Virginia enacted a law protecting female-only sports and a male athlete named B.P.J. (represented by the ACLU) filed a legal challenge, claiming that the law violates his rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ultimately ruled in favor of B.P.J. and the state asked the Supreme Court to review the matter. Our brief urges the Court to take the case and explains that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling is in direct conflict with Articles VII and VIII of the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. Former WDI USA president Kara Dansky is counsel on the brief.
From our brief:
WDI USA is interested in this appeal first because, as an organization, we cannot protect women and girls from sex discrimination, invasions of their sexual privacy, and violence against women and girls, if sex is redefined to mean an amorphous continuum of subjectively felt “genders” that may not be related to sex at all. Second, the ruling below is in direct conflict with two Articles of the Declaration—the primary tool we use to advocate on behalf of women and girls as a sex class. Third, the linguistic destabilization caused by the uncritical use of words like “transgender” (including in this Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020)) is producing massive confusion throughout society as well as in law, about what basic words like “women,” “girls,” “lesbians,” “men,” “boys,” “sex,” and “gender” mean, and WDI USA has expertise in how the Court can avoid such damaging and unnecessary confusion. In view of its work on these issues, WDI USA has a meaningful perspective to offer the Court.
…
There are at least three reasons for granting certiorari in this case: (1) The nation’s district and circuit courts are bitterly split on how those questions should be answered, causing confusion and chaos across the country; (2) At least seven district courts have ruled that recent administrative rule changes amending the Title IX regulations, see 34 C.F.R. Part 36, exceed the Department of Education’s statutory authority or are otherwise unlawful (and one has gone in the other direction), and lower courts would benefit from this Court’s guidance on the questions presented here; and (3) The ruling below cements in the law the idea that sex either is not real or does not matter, in a manner that concretely harms women and girls as a sex class, using language that is inconsistent with material reality. Amicus urges this Court to grant petitioners’ petition for certiorari and to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.
Download and read our brief here:
