SCOTUS Considers ‘Trans Athletes,’ Voting Rights Act, and ‘Conversion Therapy’
Oct 14, 2025 by FACT
Last week, the US Supreme Court began its fall term for the 2025-2026 session. Several high-profile cases are on the docket, including state bans on “conversion therapy,” allowing men to compete in women’s sports, and more. Below are three cases we’ll be watching closely this term.
This critical case will determine if states are constitutionally allowed to ban biological males from competing in female sport divisions.
Liberty Counsel explained the case’s background:
In 2021, West Virginia banned men in women’s sports. A biological male, whose mother has been cross-dressing the boy since he was 4, sued to be allowed to compete in girls' sports. Lower courts overturned the WV ban, and “Becky” Pepper-Jackson subsequently beat every biological female for the Harris County, WV, track and field title.
The High Court will hear oral arguments to decide if states can ban biological men — no matter how many female hormones they have taken or how long they have been cross-dressing — from competing in women’s sports.
We pray the Court will uphold states’ ability to protect women and girls from biological men competing in their sports, just as the Court allowed states to protect children from dangerous “gender affirming care” surgeries earlier this year in Tennessee’s landmark case United States v. Skrmetti. In fact, this case deals with the very same statute – the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Read more about Skrmetti here.
We feel confident that the Court will rightly decide to uphold states’ authority to protect women and girls in this case!
In 2024, Louisiana was forced to redraw congressional maps to include a second majority-minority district in accordance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill argued is unconstitutional. After much back-and-forth between the legislature and the courts, the case has finally reached the US Supreme Court.
“In the past, the court has said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But citing the Voting Rights Act, it also has ruled states must sometimes create an electoral district where a Black or Latino candidate has a good chance to win,” the Los Angeles Times explained. “But Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for outlawing all use of race in drawing district lines, and the court may adopt his view in a pending dispute over a second Black majority district in Louisiana.”
Although this case does not currently impact Tennessee, the precedent established in Louisiana v. Callais will almost certainly come into play at some point in our state’s future.
On October 7, SCOTUS heard oral arguments for Chiles vs. Salazar, which questions the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors. The case involves a Colorado counselor, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, who argues the state is censoring her constitutionally protected free speech.
“Colorado’s counseling censorship law violates licensed counselor Kaley Chiles’ freedom of speech and that of her clients by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors,” ADF wrote.
In court, ADF attorney James Campbell pointed out the danger of such laws, explaining that they “ban voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious, and scientific questions.”
“This law harms gender dysphoric kids because the statistics that we’ve cited indicate that 90% of young people who are struggling with gender dysphoria before puberty work their way through it and realign their identity with their sex,” Campbell added. “But if one of those children goes to a counselor and they specifically say, ‘That is the help I want, realigning my identity’ with their sex, they cannot receive that help from someone like my client.”
Furthermore, Campbell warned, “If heightened scrutiny doesn’t apply [to the law], states can transform counselors into mouthpieces for the government.”
Numerous sources have noted that the Court did not seem inclined to uphold Colorado’s ban.
“During oral arguments, a majority of the court seemed to question Colorado’s position that a licensed counselor’s talk therapy is not constitutionally protected speech but conduct that the state can regulate,” lawyer Steve West wrote for WORLD News.
Please join us in praying that God would grant the Justices wisdom and guidance in making these pivotal decisions that will impact the future of our nation!
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
This critical case will determine if states are constitutionally allowed to ban biological males from competing in female sport divisions.
Liberty Counsel explained the case’s background:
In 2021, West Virginia banned men in women’s sports. A biological male, whose mother has been cross-dressing the boy since he was 4, sued to be allowed to compete in girls' sports. Lower courts overturned the WV ban, and “Becky” Pepper-Jackson subsequently beat every biological female for the Harris County, WV, track and field title.
The High Court will hear oral arguments to decide if states can ban biological men — no matter how many female hormones they have taken or how long they have been cross-dressing — from competing in women’s sports.
We pray the Court will uphold states’ ability to protect women and girls from biological men competing in their sports, just as the Court allowed states to protect children from dangerous “gender affirming care” surgeries earlier this year in Tennessee’s landmark case United States v. Skrmetti. In fact, this case deals with the very same statute – the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Read more about Skrmetti here.
We feel confident that the Court will rightly decide to uphold states’ authority to protect women and girls in this case!
Louisiana v. Callais
In 2024, Louisiana was forced to redraw congressional maps to include a second majority-minority district in accordance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill argued is unconstitutional. After much back-and-forth between the legislature and the courts, the case has finally reached the US Supreme Court.
“In the past, the court has said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But citing the Voting Rights Act, it also has ruled states must sometimes create an electoral district where a Black or Latino candidate has a good chance to win,” the Los Angeles Times explained. “But Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for outlawing all use of race in drawing district lines, and the court may adopt his view in a pending dispute over a second Black majority district in Louisiana.”
Although this case does not currently impact Tennessee, the precedent established in Louisiana v. Callais will almost certainly come into play at some point in our state’s future.
“Our Constitution prohibits the sorting of Americans into voting districts based on their skin color – and Louisiana wants no part of that abhorrent system,” a statement from Murrill reads. “We have made this argument for years, but the federal courts so far have refused to hear us. So, when they forced us to draw a new majority-minority district, we did so under protest and defended it because the Supreme Court’s backwards precedents permit that district. But I am grateful that the Court has now asked the parties to brief whether this entire system is constitutional. My answer: it is not. Our Constitution sees neither black voters nor white voters; it sees only American voters.”
Chiles vs. Salazar
On October 7, SCOTUS heard oral arguments for Chiles vs. Salazar, which questions the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors. The case involves a Colorado counselor, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, who argues the state is censoring her constitutionally protected free speech.
“Colorado’s counseling censorship law violates licensed counselor Kaley Chiles’ freedom of speech and that of her clients by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors,” ADF wrote.
In court, ADF attorney James Campbell pointed out the danger of such laws, explaining that they “ban voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious, and scientific questions.”
“This law harms gender dysphoric kids because the statistics that we’ve cited indicate that 90% of young people who are struggling with gender dysphoria before puberty work their way through it and realign their identity with their sex,” Campbell added. “But if one of those children goes to a counselor and they specifically say, ‘That is the help I want, realigning my identity’ with their sex, they cannot receive that help from someone like my client.”
Furthermore, Campbell warned, “If heightened scrutiny doesn’t apply [to the law], states can transform counselors into mouthpieces for the government.”
Numerous sources have noted that the Court did not seem inclined to uphold Colorado’s ban.
“During oral arguments, a majority of the court seemed to question Colorado’s position that a licensed counselor’s talk therapy is not constitutionally protected speech but conduct that the state can regulate,” lawyer Steve West wrote for WORLD News.
###
Please join us in praying that God would grant the Justices wisdom and guidance in making these pivotal decisions that will impact the future of our nation!
