Supreme Court to Hear Bayer Roundup Case on EPA Label Preemption
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in the Roundup litigation, centered on whether EPA‑approved labels and federal pesticide law preempt state‑law failure‑to‑warn claims over glyphosate‑based herbicides. The justices’ decision could determine whether thousands of pending state court cancer suits against Bayer can proceed or must be blocked.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in the Roundup litigation.
- The central legal question is whether EPA decisions about pesticide labeling can preempt state-law claims alleging that Roundup (a glyphosate-based herbicide) causes cancer.
- A ruling for Bayer could block or significantly limit thousands of pending and future state-court cancer lawsuits tied to Roundup.
- The case raises broader federal preemption issues about the extent to which federal agency approvals and labeling decisions (here, the EPA) shield manufacturers from state tort liability for regulated products.
- The Court’s decision will have wide implications for litigation over glyphosate-based herbicides and for how state courts may handle claims connected to federally regulated labels and approvals.
📊 Relevant Data
In a study of U.S. Air Force personnel, transgender women retained a 12% advantage in 1.5-mile running times compared to cisgender women after more than two years of feminizing hormone therapy.
Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators — British Journal of Sports Medicine
Youth and young adults are more likely to identify as transgender than older adults, with 1.4% of those aged 13-17 identifying as transgender compared to 0.3% of those aged 65 or older, attributed to greater willingness among younger generations to identify as such and increased societal awareness.
New estimates show 300,000 youth ages 13-17 identify as transgender, and over 1.6 million people ages 13+ identify as transgender in the U.S. — Williams Institute
As of 2025, approximately two-thirds of U.S. adults (66%) favor laws and policies that require transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth, an increase from previous years.
On policies restricting trans people, Americans have become more supportive in recent years — Pew Research Center
Transgender people are estimated to make up 1-2% of the U.S. population but constitute less than 0.002% of athletes in high school, college, and professional sports.
📊 Analysis & Commentary (1)
Evolutionary Psychology, Sex Wars, Revolutionary Negation
"A critical, theory‑driven commentary that reads the Supreme Court transgender‑athlete cases through the lens of contested science and culture‑war politics, arguing that biological rhetoric is being misused to justify exclusion and that what’s needed is a deeper structural rethinking of sex and gender rather than legal bans."
📰 Source Timeline (20)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
January 16, 2026
11:50 PM
News Wrap: Trump threatens tariffs for countries not supporting his Greenland takeover
New information:
- PBS reiterates that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in Roundup litigation, highlighting its potential to block thousands of state cancer suits.
11:32 PM
Trump declares 'we got men out of women's sports' as Supreme Court deliberates landmark cases
New information:
- Trump, speaking Jan. 16, 2026 at a Mar‑a‑Lago road‑dedication event, declared 'we got men out of women’s sports – officially, out of women’s sports.'
- He framed 'transgender insanity' as being 'out of our schools and out of our lives' and characterized the issue as a '98/2' political split rather than an '80/20' one.
- The article reiterates that his February 'Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports' executive order led the NCAA to update its policy the next day to limit women’s competition to 'biological females,' while several Democratic‑led states have refused to comply.
- White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, at a Thursday briefing, criticized some Supreme Court justices’ questions in the Title IX cases and restated the administration’s position that 'there are two genders, there are two sexes.'
3:07 PM
ACLU launches transgender athletes awareness campaign amid Supreme Court case
New information:
- The ACLU has launched a coordinated 'More Than A Game' public awareness campaign backing transgender athletes, timed to the Supreme Court’s hearings in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.
- The campaign includes ads airing throughout the Unrivaled women’s basketball series and features supporters such as Megan Rapinoe, Naomi Watts and Elliot Page describing transgender athletes as part of the 'living, breathing fabric of this country.'
- ACLU attorney Joshua Block, arguing for West Virginia trans teen Becky Pepper-Jackson, urged the Court not to resolve the case by adopting a fixed legal definition of 'sex' and framed Title IX’s purpose as preventing discriminatory denial of opportunities rather than classifying individuals as male or female.
- After argument, Block declined to offer Fox News a definition of 'sex,' saying the core issue is 'fair treatment for all people, including cis people and trans people.'
January 14, 2026
5:32 PM
Justice Jackson presses Idaho lawyer on treating 'transgender women different than cis women'
New information:
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst on how Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act is not a classification based on transgender status when it "expressly aims" to bar transgender women from women’s teams.
- Jackson elicited Idaho’s position that the statute is based solely on sex and that the legislature "did not want to exclude transgender people from sports" but to keep women’s sports "women-only" and exclude males.
- In the West Virginia case, Jackson described the law as creating a 'second-order discrimination' that distinguishes transgender women from cisgender women and emphasized that cisgender girls can compete consistent with their gender identity, while transgender girls cannot.
- West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams argued the Court should focus on the basic boys-versus-girls line rather than any separate line between "biological girls" and transgender girls.
January 13, 2026
10:12 PM
Supreme Court conservatives signal support for state transgender sports bans during oral arguments
New information:
- Fox’s account emphasizes that at least five of the six conservative justices appeared ready to back state restrictions on transgender girls and women’s participation in school sports in some form, while only Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed notably open to parts of the plaintiffs’ arguments.
- The piece highlights a line of questioning about whether transgender people are numerous enough to justify treating them as a protected class, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressing, "The numbers don’t talk about the human beings."
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is quoted pressing Idaho’s and West Virginia’s lawyers that the laws "expressly aim" at transgender women, asking why that is not a classification based on transgender status.
- Chief Justice John Roberts is quoted suggesting the key question is whether a sex‑based classification is necessarily a transgender classification, and warning that any exception for transgender athletes could have "across the board" implications beyond sports.
- Justice Samuel Alito is described as giving weight to the stated concerns of cisgender female athletes who object to competing against transgender women, signalling openness to state justifications grounded in competitive fairness.
8:53 PM
Trans athlete's attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case
New information:
- Details that ACLU attorney Joshua Block explicitly urged the Court not to decide the West Virginia v. B.P.J. case based on a definition of 'sex' in Title IX, saying Title IX’s purpose is to prevent denial of opportunities based on sex classifications rather than to produce an 'accurate definition' of sex.
- Block told Justice Elena Kagan that the Court should 'not give [a] definition of sex' and argued single‑sex teams are optional, not mandatory, under Title IX regulations.
- Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Block, saying the statutory term 'sex' in Title IX 'must mean something' and questioning how the Court could decide a sex‑discrimination case without a definition.
- Block suggested sex discrimination could include targeting anyone who 'acts in a feminine manner,' conceded biological differences are part of sex but said sex has 'broader connotations,' and acknowledged the Court could, for purposes of this case, accept West Virginia’s use of biological sex while warning against a broader precedent.
- Fox News reports that after arguments Block declined follow‑up questions from its reporter outside the Court, which the outlet characterizes as 'fleeing' questioning.
6:34 PM
Supreme Court appears likely to uphold state bans on transgender athletes
New information:
- NPR’s account underscores that a majority of justices across the arguments "appeared sympathetic" to state bans, sharpening earlier descriptions of general openness to restrictions.
- The article reiterates that 27 states now have laws barring transgender participation in girls’ and women’s sports, tying the two cases directly to a broad wave of similar statutes.
- It situates the oral arguments within a pattern of recent Supreme Court decisions: upholding state bans on gender‑affirming care for minors, allowing Trump’s ban on trans military service to stand, and requiring passports to list only assigned sex at birth.
5:38 PM
Appeals courts have split over bathroom bans for transgender youths.
New information:
- Reports that during the first Idaho argument, the Court’s conservative majority showed no signs of wanting to strike down state bans on transgender girls’ and women’s sports participation.
- Details that the three liberal justices largely argued for allowing the individual plaintiffs to pursue 'as applied' challenges even if the bans are broadly upheld.
- Clarification that the Idaho case was treated as something of a 'warm‑up act' with possible mootness questions and narrower issues compared with the West Virginia case.
- New framing that the key question before the Court is whether states may exclude transgender athletes from women’s sports, while questions from Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan probed whether states must exclude them, an issue not directly presented.
- Specific factual claim from the ACLU lawyer that his client did not undergo male puberty, has been on feminizing hormone therapy, and therefore does not have an athletic advantage over other girls, with a request that the case be sent back to lower courts for full fact‑finding.
- Political context update noting that Trump’s solicitor general is actively backing Idaho and West Virginia and that in February Trump ordered federal funding cut from schools that allow transgender girls in girls’ and women’s sports.
- Contextual reminder tying these arguments to the Court’s recent 2024 decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors, contrasted with its 2020 Bostock ruling that protected transgender employees from workplace discrimination.
3:43 PM
Listen Live: Supreme Court hears arguments over transgender athlete bans
New information:
- Clarifies the specific statutory titles of the laws: Idaho’s 'Fairness in Women’s Sports Act' and West Virginia’s 'Save Women’s Sports Act.'
- Details that Idaho’s law requires teams to be designated based on 'biological sex' and allows sex to be 'disputed' via a required health exam and consent form.
- Notes that the Supreme Court will also discuss whether Lindsay Hecox’s case should be dismissed as moot because she has decided not to participate in any women’s sports at Boise State or in Idaho.
- Adds background that Idaho’s attorney general and Idaho State University athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall are defending the Idaho law after losing to a transgender runner in 2019–2020.
- Reiterates that the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction against Idaho’s law as likely unconstitutional.
1:57 PM
Supreme Court weighing transgender athlete bans
New information:
- CBS segment confirms that the focus of the Supreme Court hearing is state bans that bar transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
- It underscores that the key legal question is whether such state laws can stand under existing federal law and constitutional protections for transgender students.
- The piece frames the matter as the Court 'weighing' the bans now, reinforcing that arguments are actively under way this term.
1:00 PM
Republican governors urge justices to defend women's sports as Supreme Court hears key case
New information:
- A coordinated statement by Republican governors was released, warning that women's sports are 'at risk' and urging the Supreme Court to uphold Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws.
- The governors’ letter argues that 'recognizing the unique and inherent biological differences between men and women is not radical' and that allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports is 'unfair' and 'the opposite of inclusive.'
- The statement explicitly frames the issue as defending the gains of Title IX, saying women’s equal opportunity in sports secured over the past 50 years is 'at risk again,' and pledges continued state-level action to pass and defend similar laws.
12:13 PM
Minnesota sues over Trump's ICE enforcement. And, SCOTUS hears trans athlete cases
New information:
- NPR notes that as of the hearing date, 27 states have enacted laws barring transgender athletes from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity.
- Nina Totenberg explicitly ties the prominence of transgender sports bans in public debate to Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric, framing the cases as part of a broader culture-war strategy.
- The piece concisely lays out supporters’ rationale (fairness and alleged competitive advantage for those assigned male at birth) versus opponents’ view that the bans are sex discrimination violating Title IX and Equal Protection.
12:05 PM
Supreme Court weighs states' power to set sex-based rules in school sports
New information:
- Confirms the Trump administration will participate at argument through the solicitor general’s office, formally siding with the states and arguing Title IX and equal protection permit sex‑based distinctions in athletics.
- Highlights that lower courts struck down Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and West Virginia’s ban as unconstitutional before the states appealed.
- Adds specific framing from West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey emphasizing the cases are about 'protecting women in both academia and on the athletic field.'
10:00 AM
A conservative Supreme Court tackles the question of trans women in school sports
New information:
- NPR piece underscores that the Court’s January 13 arguments are being framed as a major return to the 'culture wars,' with transgender participation in school sports described as extremely rare but politically amplified, including more than 15,000 anti‑trans‑sports Trump campaign ads in 2024 per AdImpact.
- Provides detailed biographical context on West Virginia plaintiff Becky Pepper‑Jackson, including that she is apparently the only openly trans girl in the state seeking to play school sports and that she initially ran on girls’ teams, then shifted to shot put and discus after being cut from cross‑country for being too slow.
- Quotes West Virginia AG John McCuskey asserting that 'biological differences between men and women matter on the field' and citing Becky’s ranking as the third‑best high school shot‑putter in the state by age 13–14 as evidence of advantage, while ACLU lawyer Josh Block counters with examples like Michael Phelps’ genetic advantages to argue that sports always involve physical disparities.
- Notes that 27 states have passed bans on transgender participation in women’s sports and highlights that elite athletes Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova are publicly split over the issue, illustrating broader divisions in sports communities.
4:00 AM
West Virginia AG addresses allegations against trans athlete plaintiff in women's sports SCOTUS battle
New information:
- West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey publicly commented on newly aired allegations that the transgender girl challenging the state’s sports law sexually harassed a former middle‑school teammate.
- McCuskey said at a press conference that harassment of any child is wrong but that the allegations are not part of the state’s Supreme Court case.
- Former teammate Adaleia Cross and her parents, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, allege the trans athlete made graphic sexual threats in a girls’ locker room in 2022–23; ADF says Cross has sworn to this under oath in multiple cases.
- The ACLU, representing the trans athlete, issued a statement saying its client and her mother deny the allegations, and that a Harrison County School District investigation deemed the claims unsubstantiated.
- The New York Times obtained a district letter stating the allegations could not be substantiated, and quoted the athlete personally denying the behavior.
- The Cross family says they were never informed of any disciplinary action and felt the school did not meaningfully respond to their report.
January 12, 2026
8:48 PM
Supreme Court to step into debate over transgender athlete bans
New information:
- CBS piece foregrounds that 27 states have enacted laws restricting transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports, framing the breadth of what’s at stake.
- Details President Trump’s February executive order directing the administration to strip federal funding from programs that allow transgender girls and women to compete on teams aligned with their gender identity.
- Reports subsequent policy shifts: the NCAA now limiting participation in women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth, and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee effectively barring transgender women from women’s teams.
- Provides new on-camera quotes from West Virginia plaintiff Becky Pepper‑Jackson about why she runs and what she says she wants (“the same opportunities as my peers”).
- Adds on‑record argument from Idaho‑side collegiate runner Madison Kenyon emphasizing scholarship and roster‑spot impacts on cisgender women, sharpening the fairness rationale used by states.
8:38 PM
LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court considers whether states can ban transgender students from sports
New information:
- Confirms the precise oral‑argument timing: Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, at 10 a.m. EST.
- Centers the West Virginia case around 15‑year‑old high‑school athlete Becky Pepper‑Jackson, describing her recent competition results in discus and shot put.
- Notes that West Virginia’s ban is currently blocked by lower courts even as more than two dozen states have enacted similar laws.
- Reiterates that the companion case is from Idaho, brought by college student Lindsay Hecox.
- Highlights the Trump administration’s broader second‑term posture toward transgender Americans (military ban, declaring gender immutable at birth) as context for how the Court may approach the issue.
5:58 PM
GOP attorneys general, female athletes spotlight women’s sports cases ahead of SCOTUS arguments
New information:
- Republican state attorneys general and female athletes, including Riley Gaines, held a coordinated press event in Washington, D.C., the day before arguments to urge the Court to let states set sex‑based eligibility rules for school athletics.
- Participants framed the Idaho and West Virginia cases as potential landmark decisions for the future of women’s sports and broader sex‑based policy debates.
- The article highlights that the Court’s ruling could reach beyond school sports to influence transgender bathroom access policies and sex designations on official documents such as passports and driver’s licenses.
January 11, 2026
1:40 AM
Justice urges ‘stand up for our girls’ as Supreme Court weighs fate of his 'Save Women’s Sports Act'
New information:
- Sen. Jim Justice, who signed West Virginia’s 2021 'Save Women’s Sports Act' as governor and is now a U.S. senator, gave an on‑camera interview defending the law ahead of next week’s Supreme Court arguments in West Virginia v. BPJ.
- Justice framed the case as a test of whether the country will 'stand up for our girls' and said he is 'off‑the‑chart' committed to keeping 'boys' from competing against girls, citing his experience coaching a high‑school girls’ basketball team.
- He joined an amicus brief supporting West Virginia’s defense, arguing that only Congress—not courts or agencies—should expand Title IX beyond biological sex to cover gender identity and that he sees no reason it should be expanded.
- Justice linked his stance to personal experience, noting his daughter played college basketball and saying he has seen cases where a 'man basically is competing against our girls or our women and absolutely prevails,' which he called 'tragic' for female athletes.
- The article situates Justice courtside at a girls’ high‑school basketball game in Hedgesville, W.Va., using the setting to underscore his message about work, aspirations and perceived unfairness in girls’ sports.
January 10, 2026