Congressman Biggs Applauds Supreme Court Rulings on Women’s Sports, Presidential Authority

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Biggs applauded the U.S. Supreme Court decisions this week in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Trump v. Slaughter.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., a majority of Supreme Court Justices ruled that states passing laws to protect the integrity of women's sports are not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX. Therefore, states taking action to separate biological men and women in sports arenas, including Arizona, are perfectly within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and applicable laws. Arizona's Save Women's Sports Act has been under litigation and was being defended by the state legislature.

"Yesterday's ruling was a massive win for America, the law, science, common sense, and fairness for all," said Congressman Biggs. "It is fitting that, in the United States' 250th year, we have again restored order to the insanity threatening the integrity of women's sports. I'm so thankful for the individuals around the country who fought every day for girls dreaming about competing in various sporting events throughout their lives. Because of your efforts, our daughters and granddaughters can grow up in a nation that will protect their right to play sports in a safe and nurturing environment - not one marred by biological boys and men attempting to gain access."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in writing the opinion of the Court, stated, "The two States here-along with 25 other States, the IOC, the USOPC, and the NCAA-have concluded at this time that women and girls should be allowed to compete for those life-changing opportunities on an equal playing field, without fear of physical injury from biological males or being forced to compete against biological males. Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled that the President of the United States does, in fact, have the constitutional authority to fire a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner without cause, being that the FTC is under the executive branch - of which the President is the chief executive. The Court struck down a previous case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, that had prevented President Roosevelt's 1935 attempt to fire an FTC Commissioner without cause.

"In the United States of America, all federal bureaucrats should answer to the President, who is elected by and accountable to the American people," said Congressman Biggs. "For too long, unelected bureaucrats have operated independently of oversight from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. That chaos suffered a significant defeat with yesterday's ruling. I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for getting this case and issue correct, restoring our three branches of government to more of the balance our founders intended with their inspired framework so many years ago."

Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote, "Humphrey's framework, in short, has not withstood the test of time. While Humphrey's was surely right to focus on 'the character of the office' at issue, and surely right to say that 'purely executive' powers must be controlled by the President, we long ago abandoned the notion that there are some powers that are only partly executive. Forty years have now passed, in fact, since we recognized that the FTC exercises executive power - and did so even in 1935, when Humphrey's was decided. And more than 200 years have passed since we recognized that the Constitution 'vests the whole executive power in the President' alone."

###