Sage Steele Criticizes Three Supreme Court Justices Following Transgender Sports Decision
Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele has strongly reacted to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving transgender athletes in school and college sports, praising the majority ruling while sharply criticizing the three justices who opposed it.
In a video shared on X on Wednesday, Steele expressed support for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, which allows states to enforce laws that prohibit transgender girls from competing on female school and college sports teams. She described the ruling as an important moment for female athletes and praised the young women who challenged the policies in court.
Steele said she believes the students involved in the legal fight showed remarkable courage by speaking up not only for themselves but also for other women and girls. According to her, their willingness to continue the legal battle helped bring national attention to an issue that has remained at the center of public debate in recent years.
While welcoming the Court’s decision, Steele also voiced strong disagreement with the three justices who dissented from the ruling. She specifically named Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying she was disappointed by their position.
Steele argued that the dissenting justices failed to fully protect opportunities for women and girls in competitive sports. She said she believes their approach placed greater importance on personal feelings than on what she described as factual considerations related to fairness in athletic competition.
She also repeated her criticism of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, referencing previous public discussions in which Jackson declined to define the term “woman.” Steele said that position continues to concern her as debates over gender and sports policies continue across the United States.
Beyond commenting on the Court’s decision, Steele encouraged supporters of restrictions on transgender participation in girls’ sports to become more active in state politics. She urged people to communicate with elected officials in their states and to consider candidates’ positions on the issue when voting.
The Supreme Court’s ruling combined legal challenges from West Virginia and Idaho. In its 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that separating athletic teams based on biological sex is a reasonable approach to maintaining competitive fairness and protecting the physical safety of cisgender female athletes in school and college sports.
Although the ruling allows states to implement or continue such restrictions, it does not establish a nationwide ban. As a result, policies governing transgender participation in sports will continue to vary from state to state. In states that have not enacted restrictions, transgender athletes remain eligible to compete under existing state rules.
The decision is expected to remain a significant part of the ongoing national discussion surrounding sports, education, and transgender rights. Supporters of the ruling argue that it protects fairness in women’s athletics, while opponents continue to raise concerns about the rights and inclusion of transgender students. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves individual states with the authority to determine how they regulate participation in school and college sports under their own laws.
Sources
- U.S. Supreme Court (Official)
- X (Official account statements from Sage Steele)