## Facts

- West Virginia enacted W. Va. Code § 18-2-25d, requiring teams designated for “females, women, or girls” to be closed to students of the “male sex,” defined by sex assigned at birth.
- B.P.J., an 11-year-old transgender girl entering sixth grade, sought to participate on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.
- B.P.J. had socially transitioned, was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and was receiving puberty-blocking medication intended to prevent male puberty.
- After the statute’s enactment, school officials informed B.P.J. she would be barred from girls’ teams because she was assigned male at birth.
- B.P.J. sued state and school entities and officials, asserting that applying the statute to her violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
- B.P.J. moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of § 18-2-25d against her while litigation continued.

## Issues

1. Whether B.P.J. showed a likelihood of success that § 18-2-25d, as applied to her, violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status.
2. Whether B.P.J. showed a likelihood of success that excluding her from girls’ teams under § 18-2-25d constitutes discrimination “on the basis of sex” in violation of Title IX.
3. Whether B.P.J. satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction factors: irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from enforcing § 18-2-25d to exclude B.P.J. from girls’ cross-country and track.
- The court found B.P.J. likely to succeed on the merits of her Equal Protection and Title IX claims as applied.
- The court found exclusion would cause irreparable harm, including loss of athletic participation opportunities and dignitary and stigmatic injuries.
- The court concluded the balance of equities favored B.P.J., given minimal shown risk to fairness or safety from her participation.
- The court held the public interest favored preventing likely violations of the Constitution and federal civil-rights law.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, that equities favor the movant, and that an injunction serves the public interest.
- Policies that classify or treat individuals differently based on transgender status may constitute sex-based classifications triggering heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- Under heightened scrutiny, the government must show an important interest and that the challenged classification is substantially related to that interest; generalized assertions and thin evidentiary support are insufficient as applied.
- Excluding a transgender student from an educational athletic program because of sex assigned at birth may constitute discrimination “on the basis of sex” under Title IX.
- Likely constitutional violations and stigmatic exclusion from school activities can constitute irreparable harm supporting preliminary relief.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined application of West Virginia’s categorical girls’ sports eligibility rule to B.P.J., holding she was likely to prove that excluding her from girls’ teams violated Equal Protection and Title IX and that interim relief was warranted to prevent irreparable harm during the case.


B.P.J. v. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ., 550 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)