Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Proves Once Again She’s a DEI Hire

americafirstreport.com

During Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Little v. Hecox, a case challenging Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised eyebrows with her questions about legal tailoring. The law bars biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic events at public schools and colleges, aiming to preserve fairness based on inherent physical differences. Idaho officials argue the measure protects female athletes from unfair competition, a position backed by the U.S. government as amicus curiae.

Hashim Mooppan, arguing for the United States in support of Idaho, faced probing from Jackson on why states cannot simply grant individual exceptions to the ban for those who claim no competitive advantage applies to them.

Jackson said, “I guess I’m still struggling to understand why the state would have to have perfectly tailored laws. I would think the state would just have to make exceptions where people can demonstrate that the justification that makes the state’s conduct constitutional doesn’t apply to them.”

Mooppan replied directly: “So making exceptions is tailoring your law. That’s literally what it means, to tailor your law.”

This straightforward correction came amid broader discussions on whether the law withstands intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, without needing case-by-case carve-outs that could undermine its purpose.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman seeking to join Boise State University’s women’s track team, and another plaintiff. Lower courts sided with them, issuing an injunction against the law. Idaho appealed, contending that allowing exceptions for transgender athletes who suppress testosterone would force schools into invasive monitoring and erode the categorical sex-based separation that has long defined sports. As Mooppan noted in arguments, such demands could elevate scrutiny beyond what’s required, effectively treating sex classifications like race-based ones.

Critics see Jackson’s confusion as part of a pattern, recalling her Senate confirmation where she declined to define “woman,” citing lack of biological expertise.

In this hearing, her line of questioning appeared to favor individualized assessments over broad protections, potentially opening doors to subjective claims that blur biological lines. Some observers speculate this aligns with efforts to redefine gender norms, ignoring evidence of persistent male advantages post-puberty, as detailed in amicus briefs from female athletes who’ve lost opportunities to transgender competitors.

Biblical principles affirm that God created humanity male and female, a distinction meant to be honored in all aspects of life, including physical pursuits. Idaho’s law echoes this by safeguarding spaces where women can excel without compromise. Reports from outlets like ESPN highlight the passionate demonstrations outside the Court, with supporters of the ban emphasizing safety and equity for girls.

The justices seemed divided, with conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett questioning the feasibility of as-applied challenges for tiny subgroups. Liberal justices, including Jackson, pressed on whether the law discriminates against transgender individuals as a class. SCOTUSblog analysis suggests the Court may uphold the ban, given precedents allowing sex separations in sports under Title IX.

A ruling expected by June could set nationwide standards, either reinforcing states’ rights to protect women’s athletics or mandating accommodations that invite chaos. For now, Jackson’s exchange serves as a reminder of the high stakes in interpreting laws that touch on biology, identity, and justice.

Discern Report