On June 30, 2026, a divided Supreme Court upheld state laws barring transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams. Much of the momentum for these laws originated from the success of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who won an NCAA division title in 2022. Sports Illustrated called Thomas “the most controversial athlete in America,” sparking a movement to restrict women’s sports to “biological females.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, noting the court’s assumption that transgender women inherently have an athletic advantage “even if the facts show that they do not,” and emphasized that while sports are often zero sum, the law should not be.

This case exemplifies a broader pattern where lawmakers and voters prioritize emotional narratives over evidence. According to the American Psychological Association, emotional appeals involving named victims increase the likelihood of such prioritization.

Historical examples include Congress passing Megan’s Law after seven-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender, mandating public disclosure of sex offenders’ information. Other hastily enacted policies include California’s three-strikes law following the murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas; the Transportation Security Administration’s shoe removal rule after Richard Reid’s failed shoe bomb attempt in 2001; and regulations on teen use of AI chatbots after several teen suicides.

The Laken Riley Act, signed early in President Trump’s return to office, mandates indefinite detention of undocumented immigrants accused of even minor offenses.

A 2020 study found that from 1990 to 2016, Congress enacted at least 47 “apostrophe laws” — laws named after victims — most during election years.

While victims’ stories can highlight policy gaps and inspire reforms, experts caution that compelling narratives are no substitute for careful, non-partisan analysis.

Sources