Morning Wire - Men in Women’s Sports: The Supreme Court to Decide

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether states can enact laws to protect girls and women’s sports. We sit down with one of the young women at the center of the case along with the President and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom who’s arguing on behalf of the state in front of the high court. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. - - - Ep. 2574 - - - Balance of Nature - Go to https://BalanceofNature.com to lock in 50% OFF for one year when you subscribe to the Whole Health System supplements as a Preferred Customer. - - - Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3 - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy morning wire,morning wire podcast,the morning wire podcast,Georgia Howe,John Bickley,daily wire podcast,podcast,news podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It really hit me after the race, like seeing the podium and the awards and seeing this individual on the podium taller than everybody else and realizing that this isn't fair that no amount of effort or work that I put in is going to get me to the levels of a male. A male has biological advantages on women. They are faster, bigger, stronger, and that's how it's been. That's always what we've seen. That's why women compete against women because it creates. a fair playing field. That was Maddie Kenyon, one of the young women at the heart of the Supreme Court case

that will determine whether states can enact laws to protect girls and women's sports. Those backing such laws say they're more urgent now than ever, as more and more male athletes are displacing females, often in scholarship sports. Both Idaho and West Virginia are among a growing list of states arguing that women deserve to compete on a level playing field, and that activists should not be allowed to erase the differences between men and women. between men and women. This week, the Supreme Court hears their cases together with the rights of all states to enact such protections on the line. In this episode, we sit down with Maddie and the

President of Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping argue the case in front of the High Court. I'm Daily Wire Executive Editor John Vickley with Georgia Howe. This is a weekend edition of Morning Wire. Getting a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my diet is key for me in 2026, and our sponsor, Balance of Nature's Whole Health system makes it simple. Balance of Nature's Whole Health System supplements are incredibly versatile and easy to work into your daily routine. The fiber and spice supplement blends smoothly into your favorite drinks, adding a warm, aromatic depth from its spice blend. And if you prefer, you can even open up the fruit and veggie capsules and mix the powder directly into a smoothie or sprinkle it over your meals. It's a simple way to give your body the nutrition it needs every day.

Balance of Nature is easy to take and easy to bring with you on the go. Plus, I personally love the way I feel when I take it. This new year's lock in 50% off for one year when you subscribe to the Whole Health System Supplements as a preferred customer. Head over to balance of nature.com today. Joining us now to discuss the landmark cases on women's sports out of Idaho and West Virginia is Kristen Wagner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom and one of the young women from Idaho defending her rights, Madison Kenyon. First of all, thank you both so much for coming on. Well, thank you for having us.

Thank you. So these are major cases for Alliance Defending Freedom. this issue of transgender ideology versus women's and girls' rights. ADF has done a lot of work on this. We at the Daily Wire have covered this in all kinds of ways. First, what exactly is at stake here? And maybe, Kristen, you could first kind of frame this for us. What are these cases?

Why do they matter? How will they affect the average person? They'll affect every woman and girl in the United States and what their rights are in the future. And let me unpack that just for a minute because the issue that will be before the court is whether states have the right to make legitimate biological differences, and particularly in athletics as a start. We know that this issue of gender ideology is playing out in a number of different arenas and contexts,

but the one before the court is about athletics and whether we have the right to equal opportunities under federal law and the right to fair play and privacy. And to be clear, there are two different cases out of two states, but the court is hearing this together. Can you explain that? Are these the exact same issues in both states? or are there some differences in these cases? They are very much the same issues for all intense purposes. The case came up in Idaho and West Virginia. Both of the Attorney General's offices in both of those states have been litigating the cases with us. And we also represent female athletes that are in those states that have been affected in some way by men who identify as women wanting to compete in sideline girls in their own sports.

There are two claims in the BPJ case in particular. That's the West Virginia case. One is based on a federal statute referred to as Title IX, and the second is based on the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. Both of those claims will be discussed at length in the oral argument. Yeah, can you unpack those two claims for us? How is this going to be framed in terms of both sides of the argument? Well, let's start with the federal statute, Title IX. Title IX was adopted more than 50 years ago to ensure that women have equal opportunities in educational programs.

Title IX and the rights that come with it apply when programs are receiving federal funding. So 50 years ago, women and girls did not have equal opportunities, and that could be things from not being allowed to participate in certain classes in educational settings or certain degrees, and also certainly on the athletic field. Since Title IX has come into play, girls have now had a thousandfold increase in being able to participate on the athletic field in sports. And they also have been able to reap the rewards of that in terms of scholarships and advancements. That is what is at issue here is whether men can compete in women's sports under title line and whether states can say no to that.

On the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment provides that when government officials are drawing lines between people when they're making distinctions, those distinctions have to be based on reasonable differences. so that similarly situated people are treated similarly. So the question before the court is, can the states make biological distinctions on the athletic field? Are those differences important and do they matter? And the question is obviously yes. Common sense tells us that, but so does the science. Right, and I wanted to ask about the science element of this too.

But first, Madison, in all of these cases, of course, there are real girls who are impacted in real ways. you personally were impacted by gender ideology in sports. I wanted to take some time to hear your story. First, you're a runner. You've competed in track and field on the collegiate level. Can you explain for us what that meant for you? How important that's been for you.

Yeah, absolutely. I started running in middle school and in high school. I started doing track, and eventually that took me to college. I graduated high school in 2019, and I went to Idaho State on a track and cross-country scholarship. My first or second ever race in college athletics was against a male athlete. And I actually went in pretty open-minded. I didn't know what testosterone suppression would do. So I went and I raced and it really hit me more after the race when you're looking at the podium.

And we're looking at all of the individuals up there and one of them is a male. And he's taller than everybody. And looking at that was really unfair. And that's when I formed my opinion that this isn't fair. And running is a mental sport. If you think you've lost before you start, then you have. And so to step on the line with a male athlete in the woman's division of running, it's deflating. It's defeating.

It ruins the integrity of women's sports, and it's not fair. Now, did you feel alone in feeling that this was unfair, or did other girls that raced with you have a similar response to seeing a male compete against them? I think it's a very similar response. I got involved in this lawsuit with a teammate, Mary Kay. and she's still involved in it as well. And through it, we've met hundreds of women supporting this issue. And whenever we do things like this, people reach out and they thank us for doing it. And I know we're not alone.

There are so many women out there that want fair competition. I graduated a year ago, year and a half ago, and I've noticed that sports has given me so much more than just the course during college. It gave me my education. It gave me my job. I'm a registered nurse. And I want to be a mom one day. I want to raise educated children. And I can do that because I'm an educated mother.

And so now that I am past that college experience, I really see how important this is, is allowing women to have these opportunities, allows them to not only get that education, but to have a functioning part in society, to have a career and to provide for themselves. and a family. When you began to speak out about this, did you get pushback from the university or athletic

organizations? When I started speaking out, most of what I got was like Instagram support and support from friends and family. Our head coach had told us that they can't state their position on the issue and stuff like that. But they were proud of us for going about the right way to advocate for something we believe in. And what steps did you take? How did this all unfold in terms of the lawsuit?

Yeah, so the state of Idaho passed the Fairness and Women's Sports Act, which made it illegal for men to compete as women. And then they were sued by ACLU. And then I and Mary Kay intervened into the lawsuit on behalf of the state with ADF representing us. And as that got going, we eventually had our first hearing, which granted us intervention into the case. Now, Kristen, I know ADF is involved in a wide range of lawsuits, addressing women's rights and gender identity issues on multiple levels. Can you speak to what drew ADF to Madison's Idaho case as well as the one out of West Virginia? Absolutely. I think that we can, first of all, look at what was happening in 2014 and 15

to see that gender ideology was beginning to creep into women's private spaces, whether that's locker rooms, bathrooms, things like that. Then we started to see policies at the school board level come into place that also impacted their sports. The first case that was filed was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of three track athletes in Connecticut. In that particular case, as an example, two boys over the course of just a couple of seasons, took multiple state championships. I think it's about 15 from women and denied them 85 opportunities for advancement in just that short period of time. So that was the first case. And in those cases, more victims, more women began to lose podium spots and opportunities.

and then legislators started to take notice. Idaho was the first state that said, we don't want this happening to our girls. We see this as a deep concern, and they passed that first law, which we helped to prepare. West Virginia then did the same thing, and now there are 27 states that have taken steps to protect women and girls in their sports. And that's what's at issue at the Supreme Court is whether states have the right to recognize these distinctions on the field and to ensure that girls. have fair play. If the case is lost, then all of the states lose the right to be able to do that. And if it's one, I will say that there are still a couple of other cases that will continue to say must states protect girls. So this is whether they can, whether they have the right to,

the follow-on cases will be must they. We think of maybe red states versus blue states on this issue. So in some ways, this is kind of a step one. Can states enact laws to protect girls and women? sports. And then the next question will be, must they actually do so? Can you unpack that for us? What's the legal argument? This case is based on whether states may take action to protect women and girls. We absolutely must prevail in this case to ensure that women have equal opportunities in the future. The follow-on cases will be, though, for those states that are not protecting women and girls, does the Constitution or does Title IX require them to protect the rights of women and girls? Yes, on the athletic field, but also in the locker room and in the privacy of dorm rooms.

Think of all the places that we are seeing men who identify as women show up, even in prisons. I also think it's important to recognize in this moment what the science and the statistics are telling us. Sometimes we'll hear in these cases that this is an isolated situation, that Maddie's experience was unusual. But yet we also know the UN has issued a report that even says 890 medals have been stolen. from over 600 women in the course of just since they've been recording it. And I think we have to talk about the real victims in these cases as well, John.

When you hear about even BPJ and how this is playing out, the number of girls that are displaced, it's staggering in its scope. And then you add on the sexual harassment that was experienced there. You mentioned there the science leading to changes globally. We've seen this with a lot of Western European countries. How much has the science helped the, legal case that you're presenting? The science is critical to the legal case. I mean, on the one hand, you could say common sense already tells us what we know to be true. If you have any observation of

how men and women are different, you know that it's physiological, it's anatomical as well, and that those differences matter, whether it's the length of our bones, whether it's our skeletal structure, whether it's the muscle strength. There are just inherent and enduring physical differences between men and women, so much so that even Justice Ginsburg, recognize this, about the enduring differences between men and women in a Supreme Court decision that she wrote as well. So we know this to be true, but now the science is also backing it up to say there is no amount of testosterone suppressants that takes away the physical advantages that men have. And that includes even when puberty blockers are given to boys. And those

puberty blockers still do not suppress the hormones, the testosterone enough, to take away those physical advantages. Right. And as Maddie pointed out, the psychological advantage. Do you feel beaten already before you even begin? Do you feel like you have a chance? That's another aspect here that I think a lot of people have ignored. Now, Kristen, as I understand it, there is an alleged sexual harassment component to the case out of West Virginia. Can you talk to us about that? Absolutely. The young man who's involved in this case, who identifies as a girl, is going by BPJ in the case. BPJ was on a middle school team, and there a number of reports that BPJ was saying absolutely vile things to girls, in particular to one girl, many times that would be terrifying for any woman to hear, particularly in a locker room,

and really involved sexual assault in how it was said, very graphic. In addition, there were girls that were wearing their track uniforms under their clothes because they did not want to have to undress in the locker room with this boy. So with both of these cases, you're joining with the attorneys general to defend the state's current laws attempting to keep boys out of girls' sports. Are the other cases you've referenced then against states like California that are actively allowing boys to enter women's spaces and compete against women? Yes, so there are a number of states that have litigation ongoing related to whether they have the right to make these distinctions. And then there are several cases on the opposite side where we are representing athletes,

and insisting that states that do not have these laws, they must protect women. Connecticut is an example where we represent four track athletes and their case is up in the Court of Appeals and has gone back and forth up and down on whether Connecticut must protect these girls. One of our clients as an example was denied four state championships because of these two boys who literally three weeks earlier competed as boys. And so the switch is completely based on self-identification alone. In addition, there's a case at the H.E. circuit right now out of Minnesota. You may have heard of that story where we represent individuals there and it involved a softball team where a boy who identified as a girl was playing in that

and they took the state championship. That case is also at the appellate level. What about cases that involve women or girls getting physically injured by male players? Are there any active cases that actually involve girls being hurt in the process of playing these sports? There are cases where women have gotten hurt in the process of this and physically suffered as a result. I think most of the claims are really based first and foremost, though, on whether the states must protect women by making these biological distinctions. Many school boards and states have tried to take cover by suggesting that they're just following the law. And that's simply not true. You know, as you may recall, the Biden administration tried to change the law through an executive order. We were able to prevail.

in a nationwide injunction to stop that. But this issue has been taking up a lot of time in the lower courts because of the many ways that activists are pushing it forward, which is really somewhat ironic when, you know, you would think that the ACLU would actually be on the side of women's rights when actually they're the ones trying to take the rights away from women in this instance. Now, the ACLU has come up a few times now. How aggressive have they been in trying to insert boys into girls' sports and spaces? The ACLU is in, in most, if not all of the cases in which we have been involved in terms of ensuring that women have equal rights, they consistently oppose the rights of women to fair play and equal opportunities.

BPJ is a prime example represented by the ACLU. The ACLU even put a video out showing this man, this boy who identifies as a girl, and really suggesting that all that was happening was just wanting to have fun on the field. And yet when you know the facts, it's so startling to know what it's like to be on that team. BPJ displaced 400 girls over 1,100 times. Well, this is all in the Supreme Court's hands now in both ADF and the Daily Wire will be on the edge of our seats when it's time for the decision to finally come down. Kristen and Maddie, thank you so much for joining us. That was ADF President Kristen Wagner and Madison Kenyon, and this has been a weekend edition of Morning Wire.