Law Firm Fighting for Women's Sports in SCOTUS Battle Comments on Ruling Possibly Impacting SJSU Trans Lawsuit

The Alliance Defending Freedom says a Supreme Court ruling could affirm that Title IX was designed to guarantee equal opportunity for women, not allow male athletes to displace them in competition.

Published on Mar. 5, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A law firm leading the charge in the ongoing Supreme Court case over trans athletes in women's sports has responded after a federal judge suggested the case's ruling could impact a separate case involving a similar issue at San Jose State University. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending West Virginia in the B.P.J. v. West Virginia Supreme Court case, says they hope the ruling will affirm that Title IX was designed to guarantee equal opportunity for women, not let male athletes compete in the female category.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles over transgender athletes competing in women's sports, which has become a major point of contention. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could have far-reaching implications for similar lawsuits, including the one filed by a former SJSU volleyball player who alleges she was forced to share spaces with a transgender teammate without being informed.

The details

In the SJSU case, former volleyball co-captain Brooke Slusser filed a lawsuit against the California State University system after she was allegedly made to share bedrooms and changing spaces with transgender teammate Blaire Fleming for a whole season without being informed that Fleming is a biological male. Meanwhile, the B.P.J. case went to the Supreme Court after a trans teen sued West Virginia to block the state's law that prevents males from competing in girls' high school sports. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending West Virginia in that case, says they hope the Supreme Court ruling will affirm that Title IX was designed to protect women's sports, not allow male athletes to displace female competitors.

  • The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the B.P.J. v. West Virginia case in June 2026.
  • Oral arguments in the B.P.J. v. West Virginia case were heard by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2026.

The players

Brooke Slusser

A former co-captain of the San Jose State University volleyball team who filed a lawsuit against the California State University system after she was allegedly forced to share bedrooms and changing spaces with a transgender teammate without being informed.

Blaire Fleming

A transgender athlete who competed on the San Jose State University volleyball team, leading to the lawsuit filed by Brooke Slusser.

Alliance Defending Freedom

A law firm that is the primary legal defense for West Virginia in the B.P.J. v. West Virginia Supreme Court case, which involves a transgender teen suing to block the state's law preventing males from competing in girls' high school sports.

Jonathan Scruggs

The Vice President of Litigation Strategies at the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Bill Bock

The attorney representing Brooke Slusser in her lawsuit against the California State University system.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We hope the ruling from the Supreme Court will affirm that Title IX was designed to guarantee equal opportunity for women, not to let male athletes displace women and girl in competition. It is crucial that sports be separated by sex for not only the equal opportunity of women but for safety and privacy. Title IX should protect women's right to compete in their own sports. Allowing men to compete in the female category reverses 50 years of advancement for women.”

— Jonathan Scruggs, Vice President of Litigation Strategies, Alliance Defending Freedom (wxbc1043.com)

“We're looking forward to the case going forward. I believe that the court is going to find that Title IX operates on the basis of biological sex, without regard to an assumed or professed gender, and so just like the congress and the members of congress that passed Title IX in 1972, allowed this specifically provided for in the regulations that there had to be separate men's and women's teams based on biological sex, I think the court is going to see that is the original meaning of the statute and apply it in that way, and I think it's going to be a big win in women's sports.”

— Bill Bock, Attorney, Independent Council on Women's Sports (wxbc1043.com)

What’s next

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the B.P.J. v. West Virginia case in June 2026, which could then impact the separate lawsuit filed by Brooke Slusser against San Jose State University.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles over the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports, which has become a highly contentious and politically charged issue. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could have significant implications for similar lawsuits across the country, as courts grapple with how to interpret Title IX and balance the rights of transgender athletes with the goal of preserving fair competition for cisgender women.