6–3 Shock: Liberals Didn’t Do It

Front view of the Supreme Court building with large columns and steps under a blue sky

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices voted against banning transgender athletes from women’s sports — but a viral claim that they also “upheld” immigration protections for Haitians gets the facts exactly backwards.

Quick Take

  • The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in January 2026 to uphold state bans on transgender athletes in women’s and girls’ sports, with all three liberal justices dissenting.
  • Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, stating the Constitution and Title IX do not require restructuring women’s sports to include transgender athletes.
  • The same 6-3 split appeared in June 2026, when the Court ruled to allow the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian migrants — with liberal justices again on the losing side.
  • Claims that liberal justices “upheld” Haitian immigration protections are factually wrong — they dissented from the ruling that ended those protections.

The Sports Ruling: What the Court Actually Decided

On January 14, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow states to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in the combined cases known as Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. He wrote that neither the Constitution nor Title IX requires a “restructuring of women’s and girls’ sports.” The six conservative justices formed the majority. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

Justice Sotomayor argued in her dissent that the court moved too fast and without enough evidence. She wrote there is “insufficient evidence to demonstrate that transgender girls and women possess an inherent physical advantage universally.” During oral arguments, Justice Kagan had asked lawyers how a ruling could respect both state bans and the rights of transgender athletes. Their dissents made clear they opposed the bans — but they did not write the ruling, and they did not win.

The Immigration Ruling: Liberal Justices Lost That One Too

A separate 6-3 ruling in June 2026 addressed Temporary Protected Status, or TPS — a program that shields migrants from deportation when their home countries face disaster or conflict. In the case Mullin v. Doe, the conservative majority cleared the way for the Trump administration to end TPS for Haitian and Syrian migrants. Once again, all three liberal justices dissented. They voted to keep the protections in place — and lost.

Some commentary claimed the liberal justices “upheld TPS for Haitians.” That claim is wrong. The justices who upheld the administration’s power to end TPS were the six conservatives. The liberal justices fought to preserve those protections and were outvoted. Getting this backwards matters. It shapes how people understand who is making major decisions from the bench — and who is not.

Dissenting Is Not Deciding: Why the Distinction Matters

Both rulings follow the same pattern: a 6-3 conservative majority sets the law, and three liberal justices object. The liberal justices clearly hold different views on transgender sports policy and immigration protections. On both issues, their positions conflict with what many conservatives — and many Americans — want. That is a fair and important debate to have.

But there is a difference between disagreeing with a justice’s views and claiming they made a ruling they actually opposed. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court holds the power right now. They wrote the decisions on transgender sports and Haitian TPS. The liberal justices wrote the dissents — the losing arguments. Blaming the losing side for outcomes they voted against does not help anyone understand how the court actually works or who is truly driving its direction.

Sources:

youtube.com, sfchronicle.com, bbc.com

Everyday Briefs

© 2026 Straight News. All Rights Reserved.