Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the Department of Justice on Tuesday about the potential nationwide consequences of a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to ban transgender athletes who identify as women from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.

Gorsuch grilled Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who appeared on behalf of the government, during oral arguments about a case examining West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act. Gorsuch asked Mooppan how a decision in favor of West Virginia’s law, which blocked biological boys from participating in girls’ sports, would jibe with Title IX and the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Gorsuch used a hypothetical involving other academic programs to test how far sex-based distinctions could extend under Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS STATES’ POWER TO SET SEX-BASED RULES IN SCHOOL SPORTS

«What about the hypothetical I posed earlier that, when it comes to high school performance, girls sure are a lot better than boys, and so we’re only going to have remedial classes for boys, and girls aren’t free to attend. … Let’s say I’ve got really good science,» Gorsuch said. «I mean, it’s all about the science, right? I got the science.»

Mooppan said that while men and women are typically equal under laws and the Constitution, «real, enduring obvious differences» mattered in sports. Mooppan sought to dismiss any «pseudoscience» Gorsuch was suggesting.

«With all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggesting that these sort of intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences,» he said.

Gorsuch shot back: «With respect, I don’t think you’re a PhD in this stuff, and neither – I know I’m not, but I’m asking to deal with a hypothetical.»

A demonstrator holds a sign outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026. (Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Gorsuch continued to question how potentially allowing West Virginia to discriminate on the basis of sex was possible in sports but not in other areas of education. 

«The statute says no discrimination on the basis of sex, and you’re saying, ‘yeah, it’s okay when they’re not similarly situated.’ And when you’re worried about locker rooms, great. I appreciate that, but I’m worried about that math remedial class or the chess club or whatever,» Gorsuch said.

Gorsuch was more confrontational with the states and the DOJ than the other Republican-appointed justices. At one point, however, he observed an increase in recent decades in women and girls participating in sports and grappled with the idea that transgender athletes competing with them could potentially «undermine» that progress.

Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, Gorsuch famously wrote the majority opinion in another case about gender identity, Bostock v. Clayton County. Gorsuch sided in that case with the liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts, resulting in a 6-3 decision that employees cannot be discriminated against based on sex, and that sex included sexual orientation and gender identity.

Gorsuch repeatedly raised that decision Tuesday, asking Mooppan at one point: «Bostock does not control here because – fill in the blank.»

WASHINGTON POST URGES SUPREME COURT TO ‘SAVE WOMEN’S SPORTS’ AHEAD OF MAJOR TRANS ATHLETE CASE

A protester drapes themselves in a transgender pride flag outside the Supreme Court as it hears arguments over state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP)

West Virginia attorneys argued in court papers that Bostock was irrelevant to their case because Bostock dealt with Title VII, which governs discrimination in the workplace, whereas Title IX deals with education, where «biological differences are critical to athletic fairness.» Sex was less relevant in the workplace than in education, they argued.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. centers on a 15-year-old transgender athlete who identifies as a girl and who argued the state’s ban violated both the Constitution and Title IX.

The case was one of two the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday about state laws that ban transgender athletes who identify as female from participating in sports exclusive to women or girls. The conservative justices largely appeared sympathetic to those laws, but it was not immediately clear where each of them would land on the issue.

A decision by the court, expected by early summer, could have far-reaching impacts.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A ruling in favor of the states could not only uphold their bans and those in some two dozen other states but could also influence other transgender policy disputes, such as bathroom policies and sex designation on documents, including passports and driver’s licenses.

A ruling in favor of the transgender plaintiffs could serve to limit states’ ability to adopt similar bans and broaden interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws.

A South Korean court heard arguments Tuesday seeking the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, as prosecutors accused the ousted leader of orchestrating a rebellion through his controversial martial law declaration in December 2024.

Independent counsel Cho Eun-suk asked the Seoul Central District Court to impose the sentence, arguing that Yoon’s actions amounted to «anti-state activities» and describing the decree as a «self-coup.»

Yoon, a conservative who was removed from office last spring, remains in custody while facing multiple criminal proceedings tied to the martial law episode and other controversies from his presidency. Prosecutors say the rebellion charge carries the most severe potential punishment.

SOUTH KOREAN PROSECUTORS INDICT IMPEACHED PRESIDENT WHO DECLARED MARTIAL LAW

Cho’s team argued in court that Yoon sought to prolong his hold on power by undermining South Korea’s constitutional system of governance.

Yoon has rejected the accusations, telling the court that the investigations into his conduct have been «frenzied» and marked by «manipulation» and «distortion.»

He has maintained that the declaration of martial law was intended to alert the public to what he viewed as the growing threat posed by the opposition Democratic Party, which used its legislative majority to block his political agenda. 

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol faces eight trials over various criminal charges in connection with his controversial martial law decree and other scandals. (AP)

Yoon argued that the exercise of presidential emergency powers cannot be treated as rebellion under the law.

The court is expected to deliver a verdict next month. Legal experts have said a life sentence is more likely than execution, noting that South Korea has not carried out a death penalty since 1997.

SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOUR MONTHS AFTER DECLARING MARTIAL LAW

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol criticized investigations on his rebellion charges, saying they have been «frenzied» and that they have involved «manipulation» and «distortion.» (AP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Yoon is the first South Korean president who has faced a potential death penalty after leaving office since Chun Doo-hwan was sentenced to death in 1996 for various crimes. Chun’s death sentence was later commuted to life in prison, and he was subsequently pardoned and freed.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

El 25 de diciembre de 1937 quedó marcado en la historia del fútbol por un episodio realmente insólito. El protagonista fue Sam Bartram, el legendario arquero del Charlton Athletic, quien vivió uno de los momentos más desconcertantes de dicho deporte: se quedó solo en el campo de juego, sin saber que el partido había terminado.

Aquel Boxing Day —la tradicional jornada futbolística que sigue a la Nochebuena en Inglaterra— enfrentaba al Charlton Athletic contra el Chelsea en Stamford Bridge por un partido correspondiente a la por entonces Liga de Inglaterra.

La jornada estuvo condicionada por una densa y persistente niebla que cubría gran parte del territorio británico. A pesar de que varias ciudades ya habían suspendido sus partidos, estos decidieron jugarlo con todas las adversidades.

Samuel Bartram nació el 22 de enero de 1914 en Jarrow, al sur de Inglaterra. “Sam” era considerado uno de los arqueros más sólidos de su generación y realizó toda su carrera profesional defendiendo, únicamente, los tres palos del arco del Charlton.

Aquella fría tarde de diciembre, la niebla dificultó la visibilidad desde el inicio. El árbitro, tras varias interrupciones debido a las condiciones, permitió que el primer tiempo terminara con empate a uno. Sin embargo, la situación empeoró en el complemento.

A los 15 minutos del segundo tiempo, la niebla se volvió tan espesa que resultó imposible continuar. El árbitro detuvo el partido de manera definitiva. Jugadores y público comenzaron a abandonar el estadio, sumidos en el desconcierto que el clima provocaba. Sin embargo, Bartram no recibió la noticia.

Solo, bajo los tres palos, siguió vigilando con atención, convencido de que su equipo dominaba el encuentro y que en cualquier momento el Chelsea podría atacar. Pasaban los minutos y el arquero notaba un silencio cada vez mayor. Se preguntaba si el dominio del Charlton era tan absoluto que el rival no lograba pasar de la mitad de cancha, pero la falta de movimiento y de voces en el campo pronto le generó inquietud.

“Cada vez veía menos y menos a los jugadores. Estaba seguro de que dominábamos el partido, pero me parecía obvio que no habíamos hecho un gol, porque mis compañeros hubieran vuelto a sus posiciones de defensa y yo habría visto a alguno de ellos. Tampoco se escucharon gritos de festejo”, explicó el propio Bartram en su autobiografía publicada en 1956.

Durante aproximadamente un cuarto de hora, el arquero permaneció en soledad, sin radares, ni comunicación por radio, esperando la reanudación de un partido que ya no existía. Finalmente, un guardia de seguridad apareció en medio de la niebla y, sorprendido por la presencia del futbolista, se acercó para informarle: “Hace 15 minutos que han suspendido el partido. ¡El estadio está totalmente vacío!”, le explicó.

Incrédulo, Sam abandonó el campo. Cuando entró al vestuario, sus compañeros lo recibieron con risas, bromas y gestos de asombro ante la extraña situación.

Contrario a lo que se ve en las redes, no existen registros fotográficos de aquel día. Usualmente, se utiliza, por error, una foto de 1954 del arquero del Arsenal, Jack Kelsey para ilustrar la anécdota.

El episodio de la niebla se convirtió en una de las anécdotas más célebres del fútbol europeo. La imagen de Sam solo bajo la niebla quedó grabada en la memoria colectiva del deporte. El propio arquero, de carácter humilde y entregado al juego, supo tomarse con humor lo sucedido. “A mí ya me extrañaba que estuviéramos dominando tanto”, comentó entre risas al reencontrarse con sus compañeros.

Más allá de este episodio, la trayectoria de Bartram fue ejemplar. Disputó 623 partidos a lo largo de 22 temporadas y se retiró a los 42 años como el jugador con más presencias en la historia de la institución. En 1947, formó parte del plantel que logró el único título en la historia del club: la FA Cup.

Bartram murió en 1981, a los 61 años. En 2005, en el marco del centenario de la fundación del club, se erigió una estatua de Sam a las afueras del estadio The Valley, adonde el Charlton hace de local.