Mark Pulliam, a retired attorney and Misrule of Law blogger, said the Supreme Court appears poised to uphold state laws prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports, arguing that constitutional claims based on gender identity lack both legal grounding and common sense.
On Monday’s edition of The Michael Patrick Leahy Show, Pulliam warned that despite recent legal victories for states – including last year’s Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti – and executive actions by the Trump administration, progressive legal groups continue to press the issue in court.
“A lot of people have the idea that since we won the Skrmetti case last term, and because President Trump has issued some executive orders. Dealing with the transgenders that the problem’s been solved and there’s no further controversy, but the left has not yet given up on this. This fad has faded, I think, to a large degree in the public mind, but the far left, the fringe still is carrying this banner and they’re still litigating their case in court,” Pulliam explained.
He pointed to the two cases argued before the Supreme Court last week involving laws enacted in Idaho and West Virginia, both of which restrict participation in female-designated school sports to biological females.
Pulliam noted the laws are part of a broader national effort by states to preserve sex-based distinctions in athletics.
“These states are not alone. There are 27 states in total that limit participation in sports by biological sex,” he said.
Pulliam said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging these laws under the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that gender identity is entitled to constitutional protection.
“The ACLU challenged these laws under the Equal Protection Clause, and the claim is that sexual orientation or gender identity is protected by the Constitution so that it’s unconstitutional for a state to forbid a boy from participating in a girl’s sport if he proclaims himself or identifies as a female,” he explained.
Pulliam rejected the ACLU’s argument, maintaining that biological sex remains a clear and objective category.
“What they call trans…is calling a tail a leg. But it doesn’t make it a leg,” he quipped.
Pulliam highlighted a key moment during oral arguments last week when Justice Samuel Alito questioned the ACLU’s position on defining sex under the Constitution, and the ACLU attorney was unable to provide a definition for the court.
“[The ACLU] knows that they’re calling a tail a leg and that if you try to define it, it’ll be obvious that you’re describing the tail,” Pulliam explained.
Looking ahead, Pulliam predicted the Supreme Court would ultimately side with the states.
“I think that the court will conclude that there’s no constitutional objection to states doing what Idaho and West Virginia are doing,” he said. “I certainly predict that Idaho and West Virginia will win and the trans status will not be given constitutional protection.”
Tune in now to The Michael Patrick Leahy Show – your AMERICA FIRST news talk!
– Watch LIVE here on X
– Watch LIVE on Roku
– Listen on Spotify
– Listen on WENO AM760 in Nashville
– Read more at @TheTNStarhttps://t.co/lP8dr3Oawy— Michael Patrick Leahy (@michaelpleahy) January 19, 2026
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.
