Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

[Podcast] Listening to Oral Arguments Is Less Reliable Than Reading Tea Leaves (with Kim Pacelli, J.D., M.Ed., and Dan Fotoples, J.D., M.A.)(Episode 13)

Published on: January 26, 2026

More Likely Than Not, an ATIXA podcast, is for general information, educational, and discussion purposes only. It’s not legal advice. If you are navigating a specific issue, always consult with your institution’s general counsel or a qualified attorney familiar with Title IX and applicable state laws. Your specific facts, policy, context, and, of course, state laws matter.

In this episode of More Likely Than Not, hosts Kayleigh and Joe break down recent U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., two cases challenging state laws that restrict transgender girls from participating in girls’ and women’s athletics across both higher education and K-12 settings.

TNG Consulting colleagues Kim Pacelli, J.D., M.Ed., and Dan Fotoples, J.D., M.A., join the team to talk through the high-level legal questions at the center of both cases, including an Equal Protection Clause analysis and the “what level of scrutiny applies” debate. For B.P.J., they also explore the additional question of how Title IX athletics regulations may factor into the Court’s approach.

Oral arguments generate headlines, speculation, and anxiety, but they rarely provide reliable answers about what the Court will ultimately do. The attorneys and even several justices appear to be signaling interest in a narrow ruling, and the safest move for practitioners is to stay steady, stay informed, and avoid reacting to guesses disguised as certainty.

If you’re looking for clarity while waiting for the Court’s decision, we’re more likely than not covering it in this week’s episode.

Relevant news:

Listen to the latest episode:
Amazon Music
Apple Podcasts
Spotify