Arizona Senate President Says Supreme Court Poised To Uphold Laws Protecting Girls’ Sports

Arizona Senate President Says Supreme Court Poised To Uphold Laws Protecting Girls’ Sports

By Matthew Holloway |

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R–LD14) said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to uphold state laws that protect girls’ and women’s sports, following oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether biological males may compete in female athletic competitions.

Petersen attended oral arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J. in Washington, D.C., where the Court heard challenges to state-level laws restricting participation in girls’ sports based on biological sex.

“It was an incredible experience to be in the Supreme Court with the justices in the room hearing their arguments,” Petersen said in an interview with AZ Free News following the hearing. “If I’m reading the room, I think we win this six to three.”

Petersen explained that much of the questioning from the Justices centered on the definition of sex under the law, rather than transgender status itself. “What it’s really boiling down to is the definition of sex,” he said. “They’ve conceded that it’s about sex. They’re not even arguing that it’s about transgender status.”

He described a moment during questioning in which Justice Alito pressed attorneys defending the challenge to the laws on how to define the term “woman,” calling the exchange revealing.

Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) joined the case through an amicus brief in September 2025 after Arizona Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the Save Women’s Sports Act. Under Arizona statute, that authority shifted to legislative leadership.

“Unfortunately, you have an attorney general who’s not willing to defend our laws,” Petersen said. “But fortunately, the statute gives the Senate President and the Speaker standing. We were able to intervene and defend the law, and we’ve taken it all the way here.”

Petersen characterized the law as “common sense” and said lawmakers felt compelled to see it defended at the highest level.

“This is the same Women’s Sports Act to protect our girls and make sure they have these opportunities,” he said. “This law needed to be defended.”

Beyond athletics, Petersen said the case raises broader questions about state authority and federal overreach. “If they get this wrong, it would be devastating,” he said. “It would mean that your daughters, your granddaughters, your sisters—their chances to compete in sports and be champions—those dreams are shot.”

Petersen noted that while most states have enacted protections for girls’ sports, a Supreme Court ruling striking those laws down nationwide would leave states with no recourse. “At least if they leave it to the states, there would be some safe harbors,” he said. “If they ruled against everybody, there would be nowhere girls could go.”

Critics of the laws argue that they discriminate against transgender individuals. Petersen rejected that framing, saying the laws preserve opportunities while maintaining fairness.

“They still have opportunities,” he said. “They can be part of a co-ed team; they can play with people of the same biological sex or even create their own leagues. What they can’t do is play in biological girls’ sports.”

He added that the issue is necessary and unavoidable, pointing to female athletes who have lost titles and opportunities under policies that allow biological males to compete in girls’ categories.

If the Supreme Court upholds the laws, Petersen said no new legislation would be required in Arizona. “We already have the law,” he said. “We just want the law that we passed to be upheld.”

If the Court issues a narrow or adverse ruling, Petersen said lawmakers may be forced to explore alternative legislative approaches, though he cautioned that a sweeping loss could take years—or longer—to undo.

“That’s why it’s so critical they get it right,” he said. “If they get it wrong, it’s no different than Roe v. Wade. It could be decades, if ever, until it gets fixed.”

The Court is expected to issue its ruling as late as June this year, according to Petersen.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Arizona Republicans File Supreme Court Briefs To Protect Girls’ Sports

Arizona Republicans File Supreme Court Briefs To Protect Girls’ Sports

By Jonathan Eberle |

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro announced that Arizona’s legislative leaders have filed amicus briefs in two companion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court: Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The cases, expected to be argued this fall, address whether states may preserve the integrity and safety of girls’ and women’s sports by limiting participation to biological females.

Petersen emphasized that the cases offer the Court an opportunity to uphold fairness and safety in female athletics. “These cases give the Court an opportunity to affirm what science and common sense already make clear: biological males hold inherent physical advantages that make women’s athletic competitions unfair and unsafe when they are allowed to participate,” he said.

Speaker Montenegro echoed these sentiments, highlighting Arizona’s legislative action. “Arizona passed the Save Women’s Sports Act to keep competition fair for girls,” he said. “It’s unacceptable that our state’s top lawyer refuses to defend that law. While Attorney General Mayes stands aside, House Republicans are doing the job she won’t—standing up for Arizona’s daughters and every female athlete who trains and competes. The Ninth Circuit sidelined our law; I’m confident the Supreme Court will correct course and affirm what parents and coaches know: girls’ sports are for girls.”

The Save Women’s Sports Act, signed into law in 2022, restricts participation in girls’ athletic events at public schools to biological females. After Attorney General Mayes declined to defend the statute, Republican leaders in the House and Senate intervened in federal court. While the Ninth Circuit recognized the state’s interests in competitive fairness, student safety, and equal athletic opportunities, it left the act enjoined as applied to two transgender, biologically male athletes.

Arizona’s briefs in the Idaho and West Virginia cases urge the Supreme Court to uphold state laws that maintain female-only sports to protect safety, fairness, and equal athletic opportunities. The filings assert that the federal injunction against Arizona’s law has already harmed girls, impacting placements, roster spots, and playing time. They also argue that courts should defer to elected legislatures—rather than unelected athletic bodies—when setting uniform participation standards, particularly in areas involving scientific and medical disputes.

“Girls deserve a level playing field,” Speaker Montenegro said. “House Republicans will continue to vigorously defend Arizona’s law and support states working to keep girls’ sports fair and safe.” The Supreme Court’s rulings in the Idaho and West Virginia cases will likely shape the future of Arizona’s law and similar legislation across the country.

Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.