The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases, one out of West Virginia and one out of Idaho, relating to trans kids and adults playing in intramural and collegiate sports. And a ruling is very likely to break on predictable, ideological lines, 6-3, unless the case is handed back to a lower court.

The Supreme Court gave a win to trans rights back in 2020, with the help of new conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, in the case Bostock v. Clayton County — which correlated employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity with discrimiation "on the basis of sex," which is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But the latest two cases, consolodated as West Virgina v. BPJ, present the unique question of whether trans athletes can be barred from participating in competitive sports in the gender to which they identify — which primarily arises in the cases of trans girls who were born biologically male. 27 states now have laws barring their participation in school and college sports because of their perceived, unfair physical advantage over other female athletes.

As the New York Times reports, it appeared the outcome in this case was a foregone conclusion for the justices, in particular the three liberal justices, who seemed to focus their questioning Tuesday on whether the individual girls in the case might want to seek individual exceptions at the state level, based on their own circumstances, knowing they could not win here.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, a high school sophomore in West Virginia, is one of the plaintiffs, and Lindsay Hecox, a college senior in Idaho, is the other. Both of whom brought cases challenging their state laws — and the liberal justices suggested that, because Pepper-Jackson began hormone treatment at such a young age, she could have a chance to win her case on an individual level, because she does not possess any particular physical advantages that would come from going through puberty as a male.

The case has been complicated by the fact that Hecox is seeking to remove herself, because she is no longer involved in sports, and she wants to finish her college term without the complications of this litigation. This may or may not influence whether the justices decide to kick Pepper-Jackon's case back to the lower court for further review and not issue a broader ruling.

The ACLU attorney for Pepper-Jackson, Joshua Block, implored the justices to do just that, saying, "This is an important issue. It may affect the whole country, and the court wants to get it right."

Last year, this same court dealt a blow to trans kids in upholding the constitutionality of state laws barring gender-affirming healthcare for minors. In that 6-3 ruling, in US v. Skrmetti, the conservative justices cited cases of individuals choosing to de-transition later in life as proof that being trans might not be an immutable case deserving of protections.

Previously: Supreme Court to Weigh In On Trans Athlete Controversies

Photo via Getty Images