Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stands during a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File)
"What about the hypothetical I posed earlier that, when it comes to high school performance, girls sure are a lot better than boys, and so we're only going to have remedial classes for boys, and girls aren't free to attend. … Let's say I've got really good science," Gorsuch said. "I mean, it's all about the science, right? I got the science."
Mooppan said that while men and women are typically equal under laws and the Constitution, "real, enduring obvious differences" mattered in sports. Mooppan sought to dismiss any "pseudoscience" Gorsuch was suggesting.
"With all respect, I don't think there's any science anywhere that is suggesting that these sort of intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences," he said.
Gorsuch shot back: "With respect, I don't think you're a PhD in this stuff, and neither — I know I'm not, but I'm asking to deal with a hypothetical."
A protester drapes themself in a transgender pride flag outside the Supreme Court as it hears arguments over state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP)
West Virginia attorneys argued in court papers that Bostock was irrelevant to their case because Bostock dealt with Title VII, which governs discrimination in the workplace, whereas Title IX deals with education, where "biological differences are critical to athletic fairness." Sex was less relevant in the workplace than in education, they argued.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. centers on a 15-year-old transgender athlete who identifies as a girl and who argued the state’s ban violated both the Constitution and Title IX.
The case was one of two the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday about state laws that ban transgender athletes who identify as female from participating in sports exclusive to women or girls. The conservative justices largely appeared sympathetic to those laws, but it was not immediately clear where each of them would land on the issue.
A decision by the court, expected by early summer, could have far-reaching impacts.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
A ruling in favor of the states could not only uphold their bans and those in some two dozen other states but could also influence other transgender policy disputes, such as bathroom policies and sex designation on documents, including passports and driver's licenses.
A ruling in favor of the transgender plaintiffs could serve to limit states' ability to adopt similar bans and broaden interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-justice-swipes-at-doj-in-trans-sports-case-i-dont-think-youre-a-phd-in-this-stuff