Caroline Downey

During Supreme Court oral arguments on state bans regarding transgender athletes in women's sports, Justice Samuel Alito pressed counsel representing the ACLU and respondent side with a fundamental question: how can equal protection claims on the basis of sex be evaluated if the legal definition of sex itself is left completely open-ended? Caroline breaks down the exchange, highlighting how the ACLU attorney struggled to provide a coherent definition of biological sex versus gender identity under high-court scrutiny. Unpacking the broader implications of the exchange, Caroline exposes how progressive legal arguments unravel when forced to reconcile gender identity ideology with Title IX's core purpose of protecting female athletes. What does this high-profile judicial exchange reveal about the vulnerabilities of gender identity activism when tested in top-tier constitutional jurisprudence? Watch Caroline’s full analysis, leave your thoughts below, and subscribe to National Review!