On May 4, 2023 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a Motion for Leave to file an Amicus brief, submitted by America’s Future along with five other nonprofit organizations in B.P.J v West Virginia State Board of Educators (WVSBE), et al., Dkt. No. 23-1078 (4th Cir. 2023). Our Amicus brief was filed in support of the defendants, WVSBE, and provides the court with valuable insight regarding the constitutional validity of a 2021 West Virginia state statute protecting women’s sports and, by virtue, women.
Our brief further offers the court a historical framework, weaving together principles of Natural Law, our American Judeo-Christian system of beliefs, and principled reason, all of which serve as the undergirds of our nation’s charter. Consistent with these principles as well as irrefutable chromosomal science, the West Virginia state statute, known as “Save Women’s Sports Act,” deliberately and appropriately defines “female,” “girl,” and “woman” as describing biological females.
The plaintiff in this case, B.P.J., born with XY chromosomes, is a 12-year-old male who describes himself as a “transgender girl.” The lawsuit, brought on behalf of this young man, challenges the West Virginia statute under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX; and seeks court intervention to strike the statute and permit him to compete on the girls’ track and cross country teams.
As fully detailed in our brief, “the plaintiff’s argument fails from the start. Indeed, it begins with a false statement: ‘B.P.J. is a 12-year-old girl….’ If that statement were actually true, the lawsuit should be dismissed, as it would completely undercut [the plaintiff]’s claim. Then, [the plaintiff] would have no dispute with the West Virginia statute, as all girls can play on girls’ teams. But [the plaintiff] then admits that its opening assertion is false, as it takes the position: ‘B.P.J. is transgender.’” In reality, the plaintiff is requesting the Court disregard the facts of the matter and give great weight and deference to the emotions of a litigant. Courts, however, are not in the business of protecting the feelings of one litigant or another.
As our brief states, “[m]uch has changed in America since 1972, but what has not changed is the text, history, or tradition of Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. There is nothing ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ about allowing biological males to compete on female sports teams. If Congress wishes to expand the coverage of Title IX, it certainly knows how to do so. This Court should not usurp that legislative function. Title IX means what it has always meant. It means what it says. It was intended to give girls equal opportunities with boys in school sports. Allowing the false illusion of a boy ‘identifying’ as a girl to rob girls of those opportunities is prohibited by the express terms and the clear legislative history of Title IX. And at a deeply human level, it erases the identities and opportunities of the girls and women robbed of those opportunities today, in the name of destructive gender ideology. West Virginia’s statute upholds the rights of West Virginia’s women and girls. This Court should uphold these as well.”
We, at America’s Future, take the position that this court should affirm the lower court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and rule the West Virginia state statute as valid and constitutionally permissive.