STM Daily News
Supreme Court rules against trans girls participating in single‑sex sports, but leaves open larger questions of trans rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution by preventing transgender students from joining female sports teams, and that states can restrict who participates on women’s and girls sports teams based on a student’s sex assigned at birth.
Marie-Amelie George, Wake Forest University
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution by preventing transgender students from joining female sports teams, and that states can restrict who participates on women’s and girls sports teams based on a student’s sex assigned at birth.
This ruling, focused squarely on transgender students participating on single-sex sports teams, does not resolve other major questions that are important to trans rights. These issues include what bathrooms transgender or nonbinary students can use at school, as well as whether transgender individuals can update their names and gender markers on identity documents.
The court folded two related cases that address sports team participation at the middle, high school and college levels – Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. – into one single decision that resolved both. The justices ruled 6-3 on the cases.
This ruling backs 25 other states that, over the past few years, have passed new laws restricting transgender students from participating on female sports teams.
Twenty-one states also have some sort of restriction on transgender and nonbinary students using school bathrooms designated by sex.
As a legal scholar and expert on LGBTQ+ rights, I believe that based on the court’s reasoning, it is likely that the conservative majority on the court would uphold states’ right to restrict school bathroom use based on sex assigned at birth. However, this ruling leaves bigger questions regarding transgender students’ broader rights in school, at work and elsewhere unanswered.
A political flash point
There were estimated to be fewer than 10 transgender athletes who participated in collegiate athletics in 2024.
But the issue of transgender students participating on sports teams is a hot-button issue for the Trump administration and Republicans, who argue that transgender female students have a biological advantage in competitive sports over athletes assigned female at birth.
The issue is nuanced and depends on factors including the athletes’ age and whether they have undergone gender-affirming hormonal therapy.
Some recent research shows that transgender female athletes who have undergone gender affirming hormone therapy have a comparable level of strength to cisgender female athletes.
What the rulings covered
At issue in these two Supreme Court cases were what protections Title IX – which bars sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal funding – as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment gave transgender students.
Little v. Hecox challenged Idaho’s 2020 law that allows only students whose sex was designated female at birth to participate on girls and women’s school sports team.
Lindsay Hecox, a transgender female student at Boise State University, alongside a cisgender student, filed a lawsuit against the state in 2020. Hecox, now 24, could not try out for the school’s track and cross country team because of the law. She instead ran at the club level.
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., a transgender middle school student athlete named Becky Pepper-Jackson similarly sued the state so she could continue participating in track and field. Pepper-Jackson won a state title in girls shot put in May 2026.
The state’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act requires public middle schools, high schools and colleges to designate all school athletic teams by biological sex.
Understanding Title IX and how it applies
The Supreme Court determined that states are permitted to restrict sports team participation under Title IX and its regulations, which explicitly permit schools to have separate male and female sports teams.
The opinion started by emphasizing there are “enduring” physical differences between males and females, and that if there were unified sports teams, females could be at a disadvantage.
“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” the court ruled in its opinion on West Virginia v. B.P.J., authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the ruling.
Pepper-Jackson argued that this part of Title IX did not have relevance to her case because she had taken puberty blockers and never gone through male puberty.
As a result, she argued, she did not have heightened levels of testosterone or other physical differences that could raise the concern of a competitive advantage over cis female students in sports. She also posed no physical safety concerns for her teammates.
The court’s majority rejected this argument, saying that the Title IX regulations did not speak to this issue. The court recognized that although the laws might produce unfair results for someone like Pepper-Jackson, this did not make the restrictions improper.
The court added that Pepper-Jackson and other students in her position need to take up their concerns with state legislatures.
The court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed with the conservative majority that the laws did not violate Title IX.
The role of the equal protection clause
The court also addressed the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that the government must apply its laws fairly and cannot treat people differently without a valid reason.
The court’s conservative majority ruled that the laws distinguished based on sex, and as a result they scrutinized the laws more carefully. However, the court concluded that the athletic restrictions nevertheless passed constitutional muster.
Here, too, the court’s majority cited the interests of safety and competitive fairness as important justifications for the laws.
The liberal justices disagreed with their colleagues’ analysis. In their view, the laws were too broad to satisfy the Constitution, because they banned transgender girls who had never experienced male puberty from female sports teams.
A side step
The decision is a narrow one. The court went to great lengths to emphasize that it was focused on sports, and that the court was not being asked about transgender people’s rights more broadly.
In the court’s telling, sports are unique because competition depends on the physiology and physical differences between those assigned male and female at birth. That is important, because there are few circumstances in which the physical differences between males and females continue to be relevant.
In the past, many occupations and schools were sex-segregated. Today, bathrooms, school sports teams, changing facilities, some college residence halls, juvenile detention centers and prisons are among the last places that remain segregated by sex.
Moreover, the court avoided ruling on the constitutional standard that should apply when transgender people are discriminated against. Under constitutional doctrine, courts will more closely scrutinize laws that discriminate against historically powerless minority groups, such as people of color and women.
One of the open questions in transgender rights litigation is whether transgender people qualify for that more searching review.
This case did not resolve that issue.
The court’s narrow ruling on transgender athletes ultimately did not resolve other key issues for transgender rights, which the court will likely be asked to address at a later date.
Marie-Amelie George, Associate Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
Food and Beverage
Millions of Eggs Recalled Over Possible Salmonella Risk: What Consumers Need to Know
A major egg recall is affecting nearly 1.6 million dozen eggs sold under several popular brands. Here’s how to determine if your eggs are included and what steps to take if they are.
News You Can Use This Moment!
Consumers are being urged to check their refrigerators after a major recall involving nearly 1.6 million dozen shell eggs due to the potential presence of Salmonella Enteritidis, a bacterium that can cause serious foodborne illness.
The voluntary recall, announced by Midwest Poultry Services, L.P., affects white shell eggs and brown cage-free eggs produced at two Texas farms and distributed between June 6 and July 3, 2026. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the eggs were sold through grocery stores and foodservice distributors in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, and New Mexico.
What Brands Are Included?
The recalled eggs were sold under several familiar brand names, including:
- Kroger
- Simple Truth
- Brookshire’s
- Country Morning
- Sunups
Not every carton under these brands is affected. Consumers should look for:
- Plant Code: P-1950 or 0840962
- Julian Dates: 157 through 184
- Best By/Sell By Dates: July 20, 2026, through August 17, 2026
Why the Recall Matters
Salmonella can cause symptoms including:
- Diarrhea
- Fever
- Stomach cramps
- Nausea
- Vomiting
Symptoms typically begin 12 to 72 hours after eating contaminated food and usually last four to seven days. While many healthy adults recover without treatment, infections can become severe in young children, older adults, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are investigating a multistate outbreak involving 98 confirmed illnesses across 17 states, resulting in 26 hospitalizations. No deaths have been reported. Investigators say the recalled eggs are linked to part of the outbreak, although they do not account for every reported illness.
What Should You Do?
If you have eggs matching the recalled codes:
- Do not eat them.
- Return them to the store for a refund or dispose of them safely.
- Wash your hands thoroughly after handling the carton.
- Clean and sanitize any refrigerator shelves, containers, or kitchen surfaces the eggs may have touched.
If you have already eaten the eggs and develop symptoms of Salmonella infection, contact your healthcare provider, especially if symptoms are severe or persist.
Are Arizona Consumers Affected?
The recalled products were officially distributed in six states, and Arizona is not listed among the primary distribution states. However, because food products can move through wholesalers, travelers, or secondary retailers, Arizona consumers who recently purchased eggs while traveling—or who received eggs from family or friends in affected states—should still check the carton codes.
The Bottom Line
Food recalls are an important part of protecting public health. Taking a few moments to inspect the eggs in your refrigerator could help prevent a serious illness. If your carton matches the recalled plant codes and date range, don’t take the risk—return it or throw it away.
STM Daily News will continue to monitor this developing story and provide updates as additional information becomes available.
Related Resources
- FDA Recalls, Market Withdrawals & Safety Alerts
- FDA Foodborne Illness Outbreak Investigations
- CDC: Salmonella Information
- FoodSafety.gov Consumer Resources
Entertainment
The End of an Era: Six Flags Magic Mountain Says Goodbye to an Original Piece of Park History
Last Updated on July 21, 2026 by Daily News Staff
For millions of Southern Californians, a visit to Six Flags Magic Mountain meant more than just riding roller coasters. It was a rite of passage—a place where families spent summer vacations, teenagers celebrated graduations, and thrill seekers chased ever-faster rides.
Now, one of the last remaining reminders of the park’s opening days is preparing to disappear.
According to KTLA, Los Angeles County has approved demolition permits for the former Laughing Dragon Restaurant, an iconic structure perched atop Samurai Summit that has overlooked Magic Mountain for more than five decades.
Although the building has been vacant since 2008, its demolition marks the end of another chapter in one of California’s most famous amusement parks.
A Restaurant with Deep Roots
When Magic Mountain welcomed its first guests in 1971, the building opened as the elegant Four Winds Steakhouse.
Unlike the quick-service restaurants common in today’s theme parks, Four Winds offered guests a sit-down dining experience high above the park, complete with sweeping views of the surrounding Santa Clarita Valley.
In 1988, after the opening of the park’s suspended roller coaster Ninja, the restaurant was renamed The Laughing Dragon, embracing the area’s Asian-inspired theme.
For years, it became a familiar landmark for guests making the climb to Samurai Summit.
Eventually, changing guest habits and the park’s evolving dining strategy led to the steakhouse’s closure in 2006. The building briefly operated as a Papa John’s Pizza location before closing permanently in 2008.
Since then, it has quietly watched generations of visitors pass by.
More Than an Empty Building
To younger guests, the vacant structure may have seemed like little more than an abandoned restaurant.
To longtime visitors, however, it represented something much larger.
Magic Mountain has transformed dramatically since its opening more than 50 years ago. Wooden roller coasters gave way to towering steel giants. New technology replaced classic attractions. Entire themed areas evolved with each generation.
Yet the former Laughing Dragon remained—a silent reminder of what the park looked like during its earliest years.
For many fans, it was one of those familiar landmarks that helped connect today’s park with its past.
Samurai Summit Continues to Change
The demolition comes during a period of significant change for the Samurai Summit section of the park.
Nearby, Superman: Escape from Krypton closed in 2024 after decades of launching riders nearly 400 feet into the air. Meanwhile, Tatsu continues to dominate the skyline with one of the world’s most celebrated flying roller coasters.
Construction is also underway on Magic Mountain’s newest attraction—a Vekoma Thrill Glider Roller Coaster, expected to debut in 2027. While the park has not announced what will replace the Laughing Dragon site, many enthusiasts believe the area could become part of future expansion plans.
The Challenge of Preserving Theme Park History
Unlike museums or historic landmarks, amusement parks are constantly reinventing themselves.
Older attractions are removed to make room for larger, faster, and more technologically advanced experiences. Restaurants close as guest preferences change. Buildings that once bustled with activity can quickly become obsolete.
From a business standpoint, redevelopment makes sense.
But every demolition also removes another tangible connection to the park’s history.
Many Disney attractions have been preserved through photographs, documentaries, and archives. Regional parks like Magic Mountain often receive far less historical attention, making the loss of original structures even more significant for longtime fans.
Looking Ahead
Magic Mountain has not revealed what, if anything, will replace the Laughing Dragon building.
Whether the site becomes part of a new attraction, additional guest amenities, or another expansion remains to be seen.
What is certain is that another piece of the park’s 1971 identity is about to disappear.
For those who grew up visiting Magic Mountain, it’s another reminder that while roller coasters continue to evolve, nostalgia often rides alongside progress.
Did You Know?
- 🎢 Magic Mountain opened on May 29, 1971.
- 🥩 The building originally housed the Four Winds Steakhouse.
- 🐉 It became The Laughing Dragon after Ninja opened in 1988.
- 🍕 It briefly served as a Papa John’s before closing permanently in 2008.
- 🏗️ The building sat vacant for nearly 18 years before demolition plans were approved.
STM Daily News Perspective
As someone who grew up in Southern California, I know that Magic Mountain wasn’t just another amusement park—it was part of the Southern California experience. While the biggest headlines usually focus on new roller coasters, it’s often the quieter stories, like the loss of a familiar restaurant overlooking the park, that resonate most with longtime visitors. Places like the Laughing Dragon became part of family traditions, first dates, school trips, and summer vacations. Its demolition is a reminder that every park evolves, but each change also closes another chapter of its history.
Join the Conversation
Have you ever eaten at the Four Winds or the Laughing Dragon? Do you have memories of visiting Magic Mountain in the 1970s, ’80s, ’90s, or early 2000s?
Share your favorite Magic Mountain memories in the comments below, and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for more stories celebrating Southern California history, attractions, and the places that shaped our communities.
Related Links
News
Joby Aviation and Toyota kick off manufacturing alliance to scale electric air taxi production
Joby Aviation and Toyota launch a joint venture to improve productivity, quality, and cost as they prepare to scale electric air taxi production.
Joby Aviation and Toyota Motor Corporation have launched the initial phase of a strategic manufacturing alliance aimed at accelerating commercial production of electric air taxis—an early step the companies say is designed to make “air mobility for all” a practical, everyday reality.
Announced June 30, 2026, the partnership formalizes a new joint venture that will combine Joby’s electric aviation development with Toyota’s production systems and operational expertise. The near-term focus: building the groundwork for commercial production while pushing improvements in productivity, quality, and cost—key factors as the industry moves from prototypes to scaled manufacturing.
What the joint venture is designed to do
According to the companies, the alliance will initially concentrate on:
- Establishing the foundation for commercial production capability
- Advancing manufacturing excellence with an emphasis on productivity, quality, and cost
- Supporting expansion of Joby’s production capacity as it works toward aircraft certification and prepares for anticipated demand
The announcement positions Toyota’s manufacturing playbook—known globally for lean production and continuous improvement—as a lever to help Joby move from development into repeatable, high-quality output at scale.
Why it matters: eVTOLs need scale, not just flight tests
Electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft have become one of the most closely watched bets in next-generation transportation, but the path to viable air taxi services depends on more than successful test flights. Certification timelines, supply chain readiness, and the ability to produce aircraft consistently (and affordably) are often what separates promising technology from commercial reality.
By forming a joint venture focused on manufacturing readiness, Joby and Toyota are signaling that the next competitive frontier is industrialization—how quickly and reliably eVTOL aircraft can be built to meet safety standards and market demand.
Related Links for Further reading
- Joby Aviation (official): https://www.jobyaviation.com
- Joby Investor Relations / News (official updates & filings): https://ir.jobyaviation.com
- Toyota Newsroom (official): https://www.toyotanewsroom.com
- Toyota Global (corporate overview): https://global.toyota/en
- FAA Advanced Air Mobility / Air Taxis (context): https://www.faa.gov/air-taxis
What executives are saying
Joby founder and CEO JoeBen Bevirt emphasized the long-running relationship between the companies, calling the joint venture a reflection of shared confidence in the opportunity ahead.
“Toyota has been by Joby’s side for nearly a decade, providing invaluable guidance and support as we built the foundation for manufacturing our aircraft,” Bevirt said. “Together, we share a vision of making aerial mobility an everyday reality.”
Toyota Motor Corporation Chairman Akio Toyoda framed air mobility as an extension of the company’s broader mission.
“Since our founding, we’ve been guided by the philosophy of providing mobility for all,” Toyoda said, adding that Toyota views air mobility as “a natural extension of that philosophy—from the ground into the sky.”
About the companies
Joby Aviation (NYSE: JOBY) is a California-based transportation company developing an all-electric eVTOL air taxi. The company intends to operate its own air taxi service in cities worldwide and sell aircraft to other operators and partners.
Toyota (NYSE: TM) has operated in North America for nearly 70 years and says it is focused on sustainable, next-generation mobility through Toyota and Lexus brands. Toyota reports nearly 64,000 employees in North America, 14 manufacturing plants, and more than 1,800 dealerships. The company also noted that its North Carolina plant began assembling automotive batteries for electrified vehicles in 2025.
What to watch for next
For readers tracking the air taxi sector, the next milestones will likely center on:
- Details on how the joint venture will be structured operationally
- Updates on Joby’s certification progress and production ramp timelines
- Signs of how manufacturing improvements translate into cost reductions and throughput
- Additional agreements or expanded collaboration as the alliance progresses
While the companies highlighted expected benefits, they also noted the usual forward-looking risks—such as regulatory certification timelines, market conditions, and the ability to finalize additional agreements.
Source: Toyota Motor North America / PRNewswire (June 30, 2026)
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
