‘Devastated’; ABC Bemoans Court’s ‘Blow’ to ‘Trans Athletes’ on ‘Last Day of Pride Month’

Curtis Houck
June 30th, 2026 1:44 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

Disney-owned ABC News was predictably forlorn on Tuesday in reaction to the landmark Supreme Court ruling protecting women’s sports, bemoaning the “blow” leveled by the decision’s “unavoidable” “exclusion” of “trans athletes” like one in West Virginia who will be “devastated” after having “bravely brought this case.” In addition, they feared the fallout for “the transgender community...on this last day of Pride Month.”

Starting on ABC News Live moments after the ruling came down, legal contributor James Sample lamented the impending “exclusion” as “an unavoidable consequence”:

Later, during an ABC News Special Report, streaming host Kyra Phillips and Court reporter Devin Dwyer touted the latter’s interview from January with West Virginia trans high school student “Becky” Pepper Jackson, who served as the plaintiff.

Dwyer gushed Jackson had “bravely brought this case to the Supreme Court, insisting that she had an equal right to play with the girls,” but the Court turned away this request by upholding a state ban as well as those in 20 other states.

He tried to sound hopeful by acknowledging “21 states don’t have bans on transgender athletes,” but couldn’t hide his disappointment because the ruling is “certainly a blow to that transgender community and student athletes on this last day of Pride Month, Kyra.”

Chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce had weigh in, huffing, “rarely does a day go by...when the President doesn’t rail against...transgender female athletes in girls and women’s sports.”

Back on ABC News Live, Dwyer predicted there’s “no doubt” Jackson and their family are “devastated.”

He unspooled more Orwellian drivel: “I asked her if she would continue to play with the boys if this law was allowed to take effect, and she said no, because she is not a boy. She’s never identified as a boy. She has identified as a girl since third grade and she’s never gone through male puberty.”

“So, this is a big disappointment for her. 16 years old. She actually just won the state championship in West Virginia in — in shot put. But it isn’t necessarily an impact in 21 other states that don’t ban trans athletes. And that’s an important silver lining today for that community,” he added.

Dwyer had different emotions about the birthright citizenship case, which went against the President. Touting the “landmark decision,” he said this was “a big win for the immigrant advocates, we should note, who had fought this case, the ACLU, who led the way, Cecilia Wang, herself a birthright citizen, arguing this case before the Supreme Court.”

In addition to Bruce cheering the “huge blow to one of President Trump’s signature immigration promises,” Sample took issue with the fact that three justices were firmly in the dissent:

Ironically, Dwyer and Sample had different views about the campaign finance case, with the former predicting more chaos and more ads, while Sample suggested “it may not be a hugely consequential decision” compared to others on the issue (click “expand”):

DWYER: [Campaign finance laws] have stood in place for 25 years, Diane, enacted by Congress to prevent even the appearance of corruption in our elections, limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend directly on individual candidates, and those limits were meant to sort of keep in place the, you know, the guardrails of spending in our politics. So individuals who are only limited to donate so much can’t give big fat checks to the political party, who in turn can then spend it on candidates. But today, the Supreme Court said that violates the First Amendment and that parties should be able to spend as much as they want on individual candidates. And so those will now go away. The impact will likely mean more TV ads in our politics, Diane, because individual candidates get preferred rates with local TV stations. This decision now means that political parties who can coordinate with them can get those preferred rates as well. And so, with that added money from the parties, we’ll see more ad spending, particularly as we get closer to the midterm elections this fall.

(....)

SAMPLE: [T]he federal campaign finance regime that started with Buckley v. Valeo, which is the case that said that, in essence, money in the campaign context operates like speec, and therefore that First Amendment considerations are at the forefront, has changed so much over the last quarter century that these particular limits may that losing these limits may not have a huge impact, because they really only operated effectively in conjunction with other limits that have long since been struck down. So, I think that while we like to have quick takes on this one, it may not be a hugely consequential decision in isolation so much as only in combination.

To see the relevant ABC transcript from June 30, click here.

Donor Privacy Policy