Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court

Case Summary:
M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund is a case about whether an employer is obligated to contribute to a multiemployer pension fund under a collective bargaining agreement and related plan documents, and whether the fund’s trustees correctly interpreted those documents when claiming contributions were owed, but a precise sentence‑format rule or holding cannot be given here because the necessary case details cannot be accessed at the moment.

Case Summary:
Wolford v. Lopez is a Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s law that makes it a crime for licensed handgun carriers to bring a firearm onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission, with the plaintiffs arguing this default ban unconstitutionally burdens public carry while the State defends it as consistent with historical regulations and property owners’ right to exclude, and the Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision in the case.

Case Summary:
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. arises from an August 9, 2018 collision in Philadelphia, where Cedric Galette, riding as a passenger in a stopped vehicle driven by Julie McCrey, was injured when a New Jersey Transit bus struck their car. Galette sued McCrey and New Jersey Transit in Pennsylvania state court for negligence, and New Jersey Transit moved to dismiss, arguing it is an “arm of the State of New Jersey” entitled to interstate sovereign immunity from being sued in Pennsylvania; after the trial court and intermediate appellate court rejected that immunity claim, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and held that New Jersey Transit is an instrumentality of New Jersey and thus immune from Galette’s suit. The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether New Jersey Transit qualifies as an “arm of the State of New Jersey” entitled to sovereign immunity that bars it from being sued for damages in another state’s courts (here, Pennsylvania), and more broadly what test courts should use to decide when a bi‑state or cross‑border transit agency is treated as a state for sovereign‑immunity purposes.

Case Summary:
West Virginia v. B. P. J. arises from a challenge by Becky Pepper‑Jackson, a transgender girl in West Virginia, to the state’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which bars transgender girls and women from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams. As an 11‑ to 15‑year‑old middle‑ and high‑school runner who has taken puberty blockers and publicly lived as a girl for years, she sued the state education authorities and West Virginia after the law threatened to exclude her from her school’s girls’ cross‑country and track‑and‑field teams, alleging that enforcing the statute against her violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause by denying her any meaningful opportunity to participate in girls’ sports on the same terms as other girls. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which categorically bars transgender girls from playing on girls’ school sports teams, violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as applied to a transgender girl who has been treated consistent with her gender identity and seeks to compete on her school’s girls’ cross‑country and track teams.

Case Summary;
Little v. Hecox arises from Idaho’s 2020 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” (HB 500), which bars transgender girls and women, and any student designated male at birth, from competing on female sports teams at public schools and public colleges, and includes a sex‑verification process that can require invasive exams if an athlete’s sex is disputed. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and student at Boise State University who wanted to compete on the women’s cross‑country team, together with a cisgender high‑school girl concerned about being subjected to sex verification, sued Idaho officials including Governor Brad Little, alleging that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX by excluding her from women’s sports based solely on her sex assigned at birth and transgender status; a district court enjoined the law, the Ninth Circuit upheld that injunction, and Idaho then sought Supreme Court review. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a state law that limits participation in girls’ and women’s sports to “biological females” (as defined by the statute) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the background of that merits question, the Court is also being asked whether the case has become moot because Lindsay Hecox has left competition and sought to dismiss her claims, and, if so, what should happen to the Ninth Circuit’s decision that upheld the injunction against Idaho’s law.