Erasing a People Is Not Greatness

Paula Sadler
Jan 13
12 min read

Today’s Supreme Court oral arguments: what happened and why it matters

On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two transgender-athlete ban cases that could set nationwide rules for whether states can exclude transgender girls and women from girls’/women’s teams:

Little v. Hecox (Idaho)
West Virginia v. B.P.J. (West Virginia)

These cases matter far beyond sports because they test whether transgender people can be treated as a separate, disfavored class under the Constitution and/or whether Title IX (sex discrimination in education) protects transgender students.

Who argued the cases today (and what states)

Idaho – Little v. Hecox

For Idaho: Alan M. Hurst (Idaho Solicitor General, Boise)
For the transgender athlete (respondent): Kathleen R. Hartnett (San Francisco)
For the United States (amicus): Hashim M. Mooppan (Principal Deputy Solicitor General, DOJ)

West Virginia – West Virginia v. B.P.J.

For West Virginia: Michael R. Williams (West Virginia Solicitor General, Charleston)
For the United States (amicus): Hashim M. Mooppan (Principal Deputy Solicitor General, DOJ)
For the transgender athlete (respondent): Joshua A. Block (ACLU, New York)

Why allowing transgender athletes to participate matters

Put simply, transgender athletes are rare in school sports. In many K–12 schools, there are no openly transgender athletes at all. In larger schools or districts, the reality is often one student — sometimes a few — spread out over several years, not dozens, not teams, not leagues. Even at the college level, among more than half a million NCAA athletes nationwide, the number of known transgender athletes has been fewer than ten at any given time. That means this national uproar, these sweeping bans, and this Supreme Court case are not about managing a widespread problem — they are about excluding a very small number of students from full participation in public life. The question before us, then, is not whether schools can function with transgender athletes — they already do — but why a country would elevate the exclusion of just a few young people into a defining national controversy, and what that says about who we believe deserves to belong.

School sports are not just “competition.” They’re tied to:

belonging and peer connection,
physical and mental health,
leadership, discipline, scholarships and opportunity.

A categorical ban tells a small group of students: you don’t belong in public life, even when they’re following school rules and medical guidance. That stigma doesn’t stay on the field—it follows kids into classrooms, hallways, and their sense of safety.

“What do the numbers actually look like?”

Here’s the key reality: the number of known transgender athletes affected is tiny compared to overall participation.

K–12 (U.S. high schools)

Total high school sports participation is about 8,266,244 (2024–25 NFHS survey).
There is no complete national count of transgender K–12 athletes (schools don’t track this consistently), but the overall transgender teen population estimate is about 300,100 ages 13–17 in the U.S. Important context: that 300k is all transgender youth—not athletes—and participation rates vary like they do for everyone.

College (NCAA)

NCAA President Charlie Baker testified he knew of fewer than 10 transgender college athletes among ~510,000 NCAA athletes. That’s < 0.002%—a vanishingly small share.

Olympics / elite sport

The IOC has noted that less than 0.001% of recent Olympians openly identify as trans.
Reporting around Tokyo (held in 2021) often identified only a handful of known trans or nonbinary Olympians.

What we might see going forward (based on recent history + the math)

If the Court rules broadly for the states, the most likely future impact—based on how civil-rights decisions “travel”—is:

More bans, fewer exceptions in K–12 and possibly public colleges (depending on how Title IX is interpreted).
More litigation about whether “sex” protections cover gender identity in other school contexts (participation, facilities, harassment protections).
A chilling effect: even where the actual number of transgender athletes is small, the signal to students can be massive—more stigma, more forced invisibility, fewer kids feeling safe joining activities.

And the numbers matter here: because transgender participation is statistically rare, these laws function less like “sports management” and more like identity-based exclusion.

A Civil Rights, Moral, and Historical Warning for Our Time

By Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

I. A PUBLIC STATEMENT: Naming What Is Happening

What we are witnessing in the United States is not a series of isolated policy debates. It is a coordinated effort to roll back LGBTQ+ civil rights, beginning with transgender people and moving outward.

Under the banner of “Make America Great Again” and a promised “Golden Age,” powerful political and religious forces are attempting to redefine who counts as fully human under the law.

This is not about sports. It is not about bathrooms. It is not about protecting children.

It is about control.

The strategy is familiar: target the smallest and most vulnerable group first, strip legal protections, normalize exclusion, and then expand the model to others.

That strategy is now being openly advanced through policy blueprints such as Project 2025, backed by institutions like the Heritage Foundation, and enforced through courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies.

History tells us where this road leads.

II. THE HISTORICAL WARNING: We Have Seen This Before

In 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Bowers v. Hardwick.

That ruling did not outlaw gay people. It did not repeal civil-rights laws. It simply declared that constitutional protections did not apply to them.

For 17 years, that single decision was used to justify:

Job termination
Loss of child custody
School expulsions
Denial of housing
Open discrimination and violence

Gay and lesbian people existed — but outside the law.

Only in 2003 did the Court reverse itself in Lawrence v. Texas, acknowledging the harm that had been done. By then, lives had been derailed, families destroyed, and violence normalized.

What is happening now to transgender people follows the same legal pattern:

Narrow interpretations instead of repeal
“Limited” rulings with broad consequences
Moral language masking exclusion
Courts, not voters, doing the damage

History is not repeating exactly — but it is rhyming loudly.

III. THE FAITH-BASED MORAL WARNING: This Is Not Christianity

What is driving this movement is not the Gospel. It is Christian nationalism — a political ideology that uses religious language to justify state control.

Christian nationalism teaches:

That one religious worldview should dominate public life
That difference is disorder
That obedience matters more than compassion
That some people must be erased for society to be “pure”

This ideology directly contradicts:

The First Amendment
Religious freedom
Human dignity
The teachings of love, mercy, and justice

Many Christians reject this ideology. Many churches resist it. But its influence is real — and its consequences are devastating.

Faith used as a weapon becomes idolatry.

IV. THE GLOBAL CONTEXT: Democratic Backsliding

The United States is not yet North Korea, Russia, or Iran — but the mechanisms being used are the same ones seen in countries where LGBTQ+ people are criminalized, erased, or violently targeted:

Legal erasure of identity
State-sanctioned moral policing
Dehumanizing public rhetoric
Religious justification for repression

Authoritarian systems do not appear overnight. They are built one court ruling, one exception, one targeted group at a time.

When the law signals that a group is unworthy of protection, hatred becomes permission — and violence follows.

V. THE CIVIL RIGHTS DECLARATION: What We Affirm

We affirm the following truths without hesitation:

Transgender people exist. Their existence is not ideological. It is human.
Civil rights are not conditional. Rights that apply only to the popular are not rights at all.
Erasure is not neutrality. It is violence by policy.
No Golden Age is built on exclusion. Any society that requires the disappearance of a people to feel “great” is morally bankrupt.
History will remember who spoke and who stayed silent.

VI. THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS CONTINUES

If transgender people are erased legally today:

Gay and lesbian protections will be next
Marriage equality will be vulnerable
Intimate relationships may again be criminalized
Bodily autonomy will continue to shrink
Democracy itself will weaken

This is how rights are lost — not with one sweeping law, but with many quiet permissions.

VII. A CALL TO CONSCIENCE

This is not a call to violence. It is a call to moral clarity.

To lawmakers: do not weaponize fear. To courts: do not repeat the failures of history. To faith leaders: do not bless cruelty. To the public: do not look away.

Erasing a people is not greatness. Control is not morality. And power without conscience is never holy.

Closing Declaration

We stand on the side of dignity. We stand on the side of truth. We stand on the side of life.

And we will not consent — quietly or otherwise — to the disappearance of our neighbors.

A Prayer for Transgender Athletes, Youth, and the Future of Justice

Dear God, Source of Life, Love, and Truth, Creator of everybody, every soul, every identity,

We come before You in this moment with open hearts, carrying the hopes, fears, courage, and dignity of transgender athletes and of all transgender people.

We lift up those who stand at the center of this case —the transgender athletes who simply wish to play,to belong,to move their bodies in joy, discipline, teamwork, and purpose,just like any other child of Yours.

May they feel Your presence surrounding them, not as scrutiny, but as strength; not as judgment, but as affirmation.

Grant courage to those representing them —their advocates, attorneys, families, educators, and allies. Let truth be spoken clearly, let fear be unmasked, and let justice not be clouded by misinformation or prejudice.

We pray especially for transgender children, teens, and young adults —those in kindergarten classrooms, middle schools, high schools, and colleges —those discovering who they are while the world debates their right to exist.

Wrap them in courage when voices grow loud. Anchor them in worth when lies are repeated. Remind them, again and again:

You belong. You are real. You are worthy. Your body is not a mistake. Your identity is not a sin. Your presence is not a threat.

May they know they do not need to justify their existence, earn their humanity, or prove their right to participate in the life they love.

God of many names and many paths,we ask that the myth be dispelled —the myth that transgender people are not real,the lie that gender diversity is unnatural,the falsehood that You created only one way to be human.

We reject the misuse of religiont

hat labels LGBTQ+ people as immoral, broken, or unworthy of love.We renounce teachings that claim You reject what You Yourself have created.

For we know that love is not conditional, grace is not selective, and holiness is not found in exclusion.

If You are Love, then love cannot condemn itself.

We pray for open minds and softened hearts for those entrusted with great responsibility —for the justices weighing this case and for all leaders who shape law and policy.

May they see beyond fear. May they recognize that this case is not only about transgender people —it is about human dignity, about freedom, about justice for all.

Let them understand that a society grows stronger, not weaker, when it honors diversity, protects the vulnerable, and affirms the humanity of every person.

We acknowledge the pain carried by the transgender community —the years spent in shadows, the lives cut short by violence, the silence enforced by shame and erasure.

And yet, here we stand.

A people once hidden now visible. A people once silenced now speaking. A people declaring to the world:

We are here. We are valid. We are worthy. We have always belonged.

Dear God, we thank You for standing with the transgender community and with the entire LGBTQ+ family, and with all whose rights now hang in the balance.

We give thanks in advance for a just and compassionate outcome. We pray for a new day and a new paradigm —one rooted in empathy, truth, and understanding, moving beyond fear, fanaticism, and prejudice.

May the world come to recognize what has always been true:

Transgender men are men. Transgender women are women. Transgender people are sacred.

May governments, courts, institutions, and faith communities honor this truth, protect it, and live it.

May both the loud violence of hatred and the silent violence of erasure be brought to an end.

We trust in a future shaped not by fear, but by love that makes room for everyone.

Thank You for walking with us. Thank You for justice unfolding. Thank You for life in all its beautiful diversity.

And so it is. Amen.

Attorney context: who they are and why it matters

Alan M. Hurst (Idaho) — arguing to uphold Idaho’s ban

Alan Hurst is Idaho’s Solicitor General, the state’s chief appellate lawyer, and he argued for Idaho in Little v. Hecox. Public bios list him in professional circles commonly associated with conservative legal networks (including a published profile at the Federalist Society). In Idaho’s own announcement and related statements surrounding this case, the framing is explicitly about “protecting girls’ sports,” signaling the state’s legal and political posture in defending sex-segregated athletics under state law. Project 2025 / Heritage: I did not find Hurst listed as an author/contributor in Heritage’s Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership volume via text search of the PDF.

Kathleen R. Hartnett (for the transgender athlete in Idaho) — arguing against the ban

Kathleen Hartnett is a partner at Cooley and argued for the transgender athlete challenging Idaho’s law. She has a long record as a trial and appellate advocate, including Supreme Court work, and she has also been recognized publicly for pro bono civil-rights litigation involving transgender students. Similar case context: Reuters previously reported her work (with co-counsel including major LGBTQ-rights organizations) in a case where a court granted a preliminary injunction allowing a transgender student to participate while the litigation continued. Project 2025 / Heritage: I did not find Hartnett listed as an author/contributor in Heritage’s Project 2025 volume via text search.

Hashim M. Mooppan (U.S. Department of Justice) — arguing for the federal government’s position

Hashim Mooppan argued on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice in both cases. He is identified as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General (a top Supreme Court advocate role for the federal government). Public profiles and reporting describe him as a prominent appellate litigator with past senior roles in DOJ and time in private practice; Reuters also notes he served in senior DOJ-related roles in the prior Trump-era legal apparatus and later returned to DOJ. Oyez lists multiple Supreme Court matters he has argued in recent terms. Ideological context: His publicly described affiliations include conservative legal networks (e.g., a Federalist Society biography page). Project 2025 / Heritage: I did not see Mooppan listed as an author/contributor in Heritage’s Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership PDF via text search. (Separately, Project 2025 itself is a Heritage-led coalition blueprint; whether a specific person is a contributor is distinct from whether their litigation positions align with its aims.)

Michael R. Williams (West Virginia) — arguing to uphold West Virginia’s ban

Michael Williams argued for West Virginia in West Virginia v. B.P.J. Public bios identify him as the state’s Solicitor General (or in recent materials, as part of that Solicitor General leadership structure), responsible for high-stakes appellate litigation including U.S. Supreme Court work. Profiles and commentary also place him within conservative legal circles (including a Federalist Society bio page). Similar-case posture: In reporting on today’s arguments, West Virginia’s presentation is described as framing the challenge as a major fight over Title IX, signaling the state’s intent to narrow how sex-based protections are interpreted in education sports contexts. Project 2025 / Heritage: I did not find Williams listed as an author/contributor in Heritage’s Project 2025 Mandate PDF via text search.

Joshua A. Block (ACLU) — arguing against West Virginia’s ban

Joshua Block argued for the transgender athlete in the West Virginia case and is Senior Counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. He has been involved in some of the most significant modern LGBTQ civil-rights cases, including being part of the teams for Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage equality) and United States v. Windsor (striking key parts of DOMA), and he helped litigate Grimm v. Gloucester County—a landmark case recognizing that Title IX protects transgender students in the school context. Ideological context: The ACLU is widely regarded as part of the U.S. civil-liberties “left-of-center” legal ecosystem; Block’s work is squarely within civil-rights litigation seeking broader constitutional and statutory protections for LGBTQ people. Project 2025 / Heritage: Not applicable as “membership,” but relevant as opposing visions: the ACLU has publicly analyzed Project 2025 as a rights-restricting blueprint.

“Who is right: left vs. right?”

In a legal sense, “right” will ultimately be what the Court declares. But in political alignment, the lineup here fits a familiar pattern:

State Solicitors General (Idaho & West Virginia) + many amici supporting bans: typically aligned with Republican-led state legal strategies defending “sex-based” exclusions in athletics.
ACLU/LGBTQ-rights counsel (Block; and allied counsel): aligned with civil-rights/anti-discrimination interpretation of Title IX and Equal Protection.
U.S. DOJ position (Mooppan): depends on the Administration’s legal policy; today’s reporting describes DOJ’s argument as favoring the states’ framing rather than treating the bans as sex discrimination.

A Special Thank You & Prayer of Support

We offer our deepest gratitude to Kathleen R. Hartnett and Joshua A. Block for their courageous advocacy and unwavering commitment to justice. We thank their organizations—Cooley LLP and the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project—for standing firmly in defense of civil rights, equality, and the inherent dignity of transgender people at a critical moment in our nation’s history.

Most importantly, we honor the extraordinary courage of the two transgender athletes whose lives and futures are at the center of these cases:

Lindsay Hecox of Idahoan Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia

By standing in their truth, Lindsay and Becky have carried a weight no young person should ever be asked to bear. Their bravery has illuminated the humanity behind the headlines and reminded the world that these cases are not abstractions—they are about real lives, real dreams, and real belonging.

Prayer of Support

Dear God, Source of Justice, Love, and Truth,

We lift up Lindsay Hecox and Becky Pepper-Jackson. Surround them with peace, strength, and protection. May they know—beyond any courtroom, ruling, or public debate—that they are seen, valued, and loved exactly as they are.

Bless Kathleen Hartnett and Joshua Block, and all who have labored with integrity and compassion in these cases. Grant them wisdom, resilience, and courage as they continue to speak truth in the face of fear and misunderstanding.

We hold in prayer all transgender children, teens, and young adults who see themselves reflected in this moment. May they feel affirmed and empowered. May they know they belong—in their schools, on their teams, in their communities, and in this world.

Let justice rise above prejudice. Let truth overcome fear. Let dignity be recognized as a human right, not a privilege.

May this moment lead us toward a future rooted in empathy, equality, and love—where no one must defend their right to exist.