California Family Council

Ep. 68: Supreme Court SAVES Girls' Sports: What the Ruling Actually Means!

The Supreme Court has ruled that states can protect girls' sports—but what does the decision actually mean?

Sophia read All 77 pages of the Supreme Court's Girls' Sports Ruling so you don't have to!

In this solo episode of This Is a Woman, host Sophia Lorey breaks down the Supreme Court's landmark rulings in West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, explaining the difference between the Court's 9-0 Title IX ruling and its 6-3 Equal Protection Clause ruling.

Sophia walks through:

What the Supreme Court actually decided
Why the vote was both 9-0 and 6-3
Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion
Justice Thomas' powerful concurring opinion
The dissents from Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan
What this ruling means for California and the other states that still allow males in girls' sports
Why the fight to protect female athletes is far from over
Whether you've been following these cases closely or are just trying to understand the headlines, this episode explains the decision in clear, straightforward language.

Read the Supreme Court opinion:https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/west-virginia-v-bpj-little-v-hecox-2026-06-30-scotus-opinion.pdf

Take action: Sign the petition urging California's CIF to protect girls' sports at https://xxonly.org

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with someone who wants to understand one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings on women's sports.

AB 2691 is moving through the Legislature that would ban convicted felony s*x offenders from running for state or local office.

Sounds like common sense, right?

But now there are amendments.

And according to information shared with us, those amendments were made by the chair of the Senate Elections Committee, Senator Scott Wiener.

The amendments would create exemptions so that certain offenses—including so**my, oral copulation, and s*xual pe*******on involving a minor as defined in the bill’s language—would not automatically trigger the ban on running for office.

The question is simple:

Why should anyone convicted of those crimes be eligible to hold public office?

The bill will be heard in the Senate Elections Committee.

California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt testified in opposition to these exemptions and asked the committee to remove them.

No justification for the amendments were given. The amendments remained and the bill passed.

Please be praying, this is one of the most disturbing actions we have seen come out of the California State Capitol.