📄 Executive Summary

Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents Cases: Little v. Hecox & West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2025 Term) Submitted by: The User [the person who composed the Notion Site], Citizen Advocate Forged in a Praxis Foundry with AI assistants

Purpose

This amicus curiae brief urges the Court to strike down categorical bans excluding transgender girls and women from women’s sports. It offers a unique contribution by centering youth dignity, mental-health harms, and institutional legitimacy. The brief is explicitly designed to withstand five tiers of critique and defend itself against the Court’s skeptical justices.

Holding Sought

The Court should affirm that blanket bans on transgender participation:

1. Violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Fail heightened scrutiny as sex-based classifications (United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)).
3. Constitute impermissible animus-based exclusions (Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)).

Key Precedents

Bostock v. Clayton County (590 U.S. ___ (2020)) — Gender identity discrimination falls within “because of sex.”

United States v. Virginia (518 U.S. 515 (1996)) — Sex classifications require an “exceedingly persuasive justification.”

Romer v. Evans (517 U.S. 620 (1996)) — State laws motivated by animus violate Equal Protection.

Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558 (2003)) — Rights cannot be denied based on majority disapproval.

Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. 644 (2015)) — Liberty and dignity are inseparable.