Supreme Court Showdown: Democrats Silent as Trans Athlete Harassment Scandal Erupts

Paul Riverbank, 1/9/2026Supreme Court faces heated debate over transgender athletes, Title IX, and locker room harassment claims.

Back in the spring, more than a hundred Democrats in Congress put their signatures to a legal brief supporting two transgender teenagers hoping to retain their right to compete. Their plea to the Supreme Court: state bans like those in Idaho and West Virginia conflict with the spirit—and the fundamental protections—of Title IX, the landmark law that transformed opportunities for women in education and sports. “No student should be discriminated against based on who they are,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono, voicing a sentiment that seemed straightforward enough—until, that is, the conversation took an unpredictable turn.

Recently, lawmakers who once spoke with conviction on the issue have fallen conspicuously silent. Questions from Fox News Digital landed with a thud; not a single Democrat responded when asked about troubling new accusations swirling around one of the student-athletes at the heart of the West Virginia case.

It was in Bridgeport, West Virginia, that the temperature spiked. Two high school girls, Adaleia Cross and Emmy Salerno, came forward with unsettling stories about interactions with the transgender athlete in question. Adaleia’s mother didn’t mince words, describing to a reporter a series of comments her daughter allegedly heard inside the girls’ locker room—vulgar language and threats of a sexual nature. “We received no response from the school after filing the report,” her father added, exasperated by a system they felt offered little recourse.

Attorneys representing the Cross family have gone further, saying their client has sworn under oath in multiple proceedings about what happened behind closed doors. Yet the ACLU, which is standing by the transgender athlete, counters that the school’s internal review turned up nothing to substantiate these claims—insisting the accusations are unfounded and their client is innocent.

Across town, Emmy Salerno has her own memories. Competing in track at Lincoln Middle School, she says she faced “intimidation tactics”—an unspoken pressure, stares that lingered, a sense of being watched too closely. At a basketball game, she recalled being shadowed in a way that left her uneasy, admitting she wondered if confrontation was imminent. “I kind of felt like, ‘Is he gonna try to fight me?’” Emmy shared, capturing the tension in a single question.

Conservative groups have seized on these stories, using them as a rallying cry. The American Principles Project pointedly reminded followers that dozens of Congressional Democrats are, in their words, “urging SCOTUS to side with male athletes”—before demanding to know why anyone would back a plaintiff now accused of harassment and intimidation. Their charge: these are predictable consequences of ignoring the reality of girls’ experiences in locker rooms and on the playing field.

Meanwhile, supporters of inclusive policies continue to make their case. They highlight that only a sliver of America’s student athletes are transgender, but for those individuals, the chance to play often carries outsize weight. One can find reports—like those in the Boston Globe—describing how vital sports are for a sense of belonging and mental health, especially among students who frequently face isolation.

That hasn’t satisfied all critics. Groups like Women’s Liberation Front have urged the justices to focus on the original intent of Title IX and the right of young women to feel safe. “Males who demand access to women’s spaces do so in an attempt to intimidate, harass, and sexually threaten women and girls,” WoLF argued in a recently filed brief, speaking for a cohort of parents and athletes who’ve grown weary of being told their concerns amount to mere prejudice.

What happens next could reshape the legal landscape for years. Lower court rulings—both from the Fourth Circuit, which barred West Virginia’s law, and the Ninth, which ruled likewise on Idaho’s—have mostly favored transgender athletes. Any victory could be fleeting, though. The Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold state limits on gender-affirming care for minors suggests the justices may give states wider leeway.

Beyond the claims and counterclaims, beyond the headlines and political jabs, are the teenagers themselves—on teams, in hallways, wrestling with uncertainty and the scrutiny of adults who appear as divided as ever. The legal briefs are stacked high, but for students standing on the starting line or taking a deep breath in the locker room, the stakes are viscerally personal.

When the Supreme Court finally renders its verdict, Title IX will either stretch to accommodate a new reality or snap back to its original contours. The country is waiting, and for many, so is a sense of clarity—whatever shape it may take.

A new front in America’s ever-evolving debate over transgender participation in school sports is unfolding—this time, under the watchful eye of the nation’s highest court. What began as impassioned arguments over fairness in girls’ and women’s athletics has, if possible, grown even more tangled, with fresh allegations against one young athlete drawing renewed attention to two cases central to the controversy: Little v. Hecox in Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J.Back in the spring, more than a hundred Democrats in Congress put their signatures to a legal brief supporting two transgender teenagers hoping to retain their right to compete. Their plea to the Supreme Court: state bans like those in Idaho and West Virginia conflict with the spirit—and the fundamental protections—of Title IX, the landmark law that transformed opportunities for women in education and sports. “No student should be discriminated against based on who they are,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono, voicing a sentiment that seemed straightforward enough—until, that is, the conversation took an unpredictable turn.Recently, lawmakers who once spoke with conviction on the issue have fallen conspicuously silent. Questions from Fox News Digital landed with a thud; not a single Democrat responded when asked about troubling new accusations swirling around one of the student-athletes at the heart of the West Virginia case.It was in Bridgeport, West Virginia, that the temperature spiked. Two high school girls, Adaleia Cross and Emmy Salerno, came forward with unsettling stories about interactions with the transgender athlete in question. Adaleia’s mother didn’t mince words, describing to a reporter a series of comments her daughter allegedly heard inside the girls’ locker room—vulgar language and threats of a sexual nature. “We received no response from the school after filing the report,” her father added, exasperated by a system they felt offered little recourse.Attorneys representing the Cross family have gone further, saying their client has sworn under oath in multiple proceedings about what happened behind closed doors. Yet the ACLU, which is standing by the transgender athlete, counters that the school’s internal review turned up nothing to substantiate these claims—insisting the accusations are unfounded and their client is innocent.Across town, Emmy Salerno has her own memories. Competing in track at Lincoln Middle School, she says she faced “intimidation tactics”—an unspoken pressure, stares that lingered, a sense of being watched too closely. At a basketball game, she recalled being shadowed in a way that left her uneasy, admitting she wondered if confrontation was imminent. “I kind of felt like, ‘Is he gonna try to fight me?’” Emmy shared, capturing the tension in a single question.Conservative groups have seized on these stories, using them as a rallying cry. The American Principles Project pointedly reminded followers that dozens of Congressional Democrats are, in their words, “urging SCOTUS to side with male athletes”—before demanding to know why anyone would back a plaintiff now accused of harassment and intimidation. Their charge: these are predictable consequences of ignoring the reality of girls’ experiences in locker rooms and on the playing field.Meanwhile, supporters of inclusive policies continue to make their case. They highlight that only a sliver of America’s student athletes are transgender, but for those individuals, the chance to play often carries outsize weight. One can find reports—like those in the Boston Globe—describing how vital sports are for a sense of belonging and mental health, especially among students who frequently face isolation.That hasn’t satisfied all critics. Groups like Women’s Liberation Front have urged the justices to focus on the original intent of Title IX and the right of young women to feel safe. “Males who demand access to women’s spaces do so in an attempt to intimidate, harass, and sexually threaten women and girls,” WoLF argued in a recently filed brief, speaking for a cohort of parents and athletes who’ve grown weary of being told their concerns amount to mere prejudice.What happens next could reshape the legal landscape for years. Lower court rulings—both from the Fourth Circuit, which barred West Virginia’s law, and the Ninth, which ruled likewise on Idaho’s—have mostly favored transgender athletes. Any victory could be fleeting, though. The Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold state limits on gender-affirming care for minors suggests the justices may give states wider leeway.Beyond the claims and counterclaims, beyond the headlines and political jabs, are the teenagers themselves—on teams, in hallways, wrestling with uncertainty and the scrutiny of adults who appear as divided as ever. The legal briefs are stacked high, but for students standing on the starting line or taking a deep breath in the locker room, the stakes are viscerally personal.When the Supreme Court finally renders its verdict, Title IX will either stretch to accommodate a new reality or snap back to its original contours. The country is waiting, and for many, so is a sense of clarity—whatever shape it may take.