{"id":560498,"date":"2026-02-08T01:38:19","date_gmt":"2026-02-08T01:38:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/560498\/"},"modified":"2026-02-08T01:38:19","modified_gmt":"2026-02-08T01:38:19","slug":"project-angel-food-is-now-able-to-feed-10000-people-daily-with-expanded-building","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/560498\/","title":{"rendered":"Project Angel Food is now able to feed 10,000 people daily with expanded building"},"content":{"rendered":"

This Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments<\/a> regarding two cases about transgender girls in sports: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2020, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed into law HB 500<\/a>, which bans transgender girls and women from participating in school sports. This affected the first case\u2019s respondent: transgender student athlete Lindsay Hecox, who was barred from participating in the track and cross country teams as well as intramural soccer and running clubs.<\/p>\n

In 2021, then-governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, approved HB 3293<\/a>, which enacts a similar ban. Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.), now an incoming high school student, opposed the discriminatory policy when it prevented her from joining her then-middle school\u2019s cross country and track and field teams. Pepper-Jackson has also only undergone female puberty due to gender-affirming care, but West Virginia argues that its anti-transgender policies should be upheld because of her assigned sex at birth.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For LGBTQ+ advocates and allies, these cases illustrate the burden and harm transgender people face daily as their rights to privacy, dignity, care, and inclusion are constantly at risk of being eroded and stripped completely.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Experts also wonder if these cases could potentially reshape the Constitution\u2019s Equal Protection Clause<\/a> as well as the civil rights law, Title IX<\/a>. The former prohibits discrimination on other factors aside from race, though governments have argued that certain \u201csuspect classifications\u201d can be looked at more closely through \u201cheightened scrutiny.\u201d The latter prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally-funded schools.<\/p>\n

What is unfolding and how local advocates are informing change:<\/p>\n

The fight ahead is weary, and experts are certain that the states involved will not concede their points. In a webinar organized yesterday by the Williams Institute<\/a>, several LGBTQ+ policy experts, including Rutgers Law School professor and anti-discrimination scholar Katie Eyer, examined where these cases may be heading, as well as efforts to muddy the arguments.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt seems possible that the court might try to sidestep that issue here by saying that these laws don\u2019t target transgender people at all,\u201d Eyer said. \u201cI think for most people, this seems bananas: like an upside-down world. We all know these laws were about transgender people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jenny Pizer, an attorney for the LGBTQ+ civil rights legal organization Lambda Legal<\/a> and a co-counsel member for the B.P.J. case, affirmed this sentiment at a press conference organized Tuesday by Lambda Legal and AIDS Healthcare Foundation affinity group, FLUX<\/a>. \u201cThey\u2019ve gone to great lengths to say there\u2019s no discrimination,\u201d Pizer said. \u201c[They\u2019re arguing] it\u2019s just technicalities or classifications.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Eyer was one of three Equal Protections scholars who filed an amicus brief<\/a> to be considered in the Supreme Court cases. An amicus brief is a legal document submitted by someone who is not involved directly in a case but who may offer additional perspectives and information that can inform the ruling process.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Eyer\u2019s brief provided historical context that clarified the disadvantages of blanket sex-based policies. These types of laws, according to Eyer, uphold stereotypes over nuance, truth, and equal protection guidelines. For Pepper-Jackson, who has only undergone female puberty and who does not \u201cbenefit\u201d from what dissidents define as a sex-based competitive \u201cadvantage,\u201d the state should have provided her the ability to argue that she should have the same rights as other girls.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOf course, the state hasn\u2019t done that here,\u201d Eyer said. \u201cUnder these precedents, the Supreme Court should invalidate the laws as applied to those trans girls who really don\u2019t have a sex-based competitive advantage.\u201d<\/p>\n

Who are these bills protecting?<\/p>\n

The states argue<\/a> that their policies are merely \u201censuring safety and fairness in girls\u2019 sports.\u201d But queer advocates understand that this is a veneer for the exclusion of transgender people from society. Forcing trans youth out of sports \u201cdoes not protect anyone,\u201d according to California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network<\/a> director Dannie Cese\u0148a, who spoke at Tuesday\u2019s press conference.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt encourages the scrutiny of children\u2019s bodies. It fuels gender policing, and it creates hostile school environments \u2014\u00a0not safer ones,\u201d said Cese\u0148a. \u201cOur youth should not inherit a world that treats their existence as a threat.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Transgender people are systemically disempowered\u00a0<\/p>\n

At yesterday\u2019s webinar, Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the Williams Institute Andrew Flores discussed his own amicus brief<\/a> in support of Pepper-Jackson. The brief highlights the need for \u201cheightened judicial scrutiny\u201d in Pepper-Jackson\u2019s case because the majority of political processes \u201csystemically fail\u201d transgender people.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For example, the transgender community faces substantial barriers in exercising their voter rights because of voter identification laws and other policies that regulate and define identity. \u201cEven being able to gain access to the franchise is a burden for transgender people,\u201d Flores said. \u201cThe court does play an important role there. It can grant legitimacy to arguments\u2026or at least [acknowledge] that these issues are more complicated than maybe how they\u2019ll receive them.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

What\u2019s next?<\/p>\n

Experts are hesitant about where the cases stand. \u201cBottom line: I don\u2019t know what the court is going to do in these cases. They may send them back down for further development,\u201d Pizer said, who thinks future rulings will not shift more overarching policies regarding transgender rights. \u201cI think they will probably decide based only on laws about sports, not laws more broadly about the rights of trans folks.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

But whatever is decided, the impacts will trickle down to everyone. While the cases deal specifically with anti-transgender policies, experts warn that LGBTQ+ issues have always been tied to racial, economic, and disability justice. \u201cThere\u2019s this looming constitutional campaign to really undermine civil rights,\u201d said Eyer. \u201cThat affects LGBTQ people. It affects people of color. It affects people with disabilities. It affects everybody, and it really is concerning.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

As transgender inclusion and safety are being argued on the largest legal stage, advocates are asking: \u201cWhen are you going to step up?\u201d They are also sending a direct message to transgender youth: \u201cWe see you, we believe in you, and we are fighting for you,\u201d said Cese\u0148a. \u201cYou deserve joy, community, and care. You deserve a future that reflects who you are and not who anyone or any politician demands you to be. Trans youth deserve better.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Kristie Song is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu\/cafellows<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t