SCOTUS Rules States Can Ban Transgender Athletes from Female Sports

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex. Accordingly, it further found that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females.

Facts of the Case

In 2021, West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits male students from playing on female teams. The law specifies that sex is determined by biology. The legislature expressly found that prohibiting biological male participation in female sports is necessary to promote equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.

Respondent B.P.J., who identifies as female, is a biological male as defined by the Act. B.P.J. has sought to participate on the girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams at school. B.P.J. sued West Virginia and relevant officials for alleged violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §1681(a), provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Congress subsequently passed the Javits Amendment, which directed the then-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to promptly issue “regulations implementing the provisions of ” Title IX with respect to “the prohibition of sex discrimination.” In 1975, HEW promulgated comprehensive regulations requiring that schools provide “equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes” and authorizing “separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” 

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment for the State on both claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the Title IX issue and remanded for further fact-finding on the Equal Protection Clause claim.

In 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits male students from participating on female teams. The Idaho law states that sex is determined by biology. The law further declares that “separate sex-specific teams furthers efforts to promote sex equality…by providing opportunities for female athletes.” It also recognizes the physical differences between biological males and biological females. The law further found that the benefit “that natural testosterone provides to male athletes is not diminished through the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.”

Respondent Hecox, who identifies as female, is a biological male as defined by the Act. Hecox competed for the women’s club soccer team, and tried out for the women’s Division I track and cross-country teams. Shortly after Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, Hecox sued Idaho and relevant officials, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The U. S. District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia and Iowa have permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.  “Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”

The Supreme Court first determined that the term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” As Justice Kavanaugh explained, the ordinary meaning of the term “sex” the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that schools must make an exception to that general rule for biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormones, citing that the texts of Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations do not support that argument. It also found that limiting female sports teams to biological females without exception is “reasonable” as required by the Javits Amendment. In support, Justice Kavanaugh noted the distinctiveness of competitive sports—and the safety and competitive fairness issues that can arise when females are forced to compete against males.

The Supreme Court further held that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by maintaining female sports teams for biological females. “The challenged West Virginia and Idaho laws make sex-based classifications in limiting female teams to biological females,” Justice Kavanaugh explained. “Under this Court’s equal protection precedents, sex-based classifications are permissible only when the classification is ‘substantially related’ to achieving an ‘important’ government objective. The States argue—and the Court agrees—that the interests of safety and competitive fairness are important interests for purposes of equal protection analysis.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote concurring opinions, with Justice Thomas emphasizing that “transgender status is not a suspect class requiring heightened equal-protection scrutiny.”

Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “The Court should have affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s decision to remand for further factfinding,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Because of the Court’s decision today, West Virginia, and any other state actor, can deny B.P.J. and others like her these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.” 

Justice Jackson also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. “The Court did not need to hold that Title IX protects against discrimination solely on the basis of ‘biological sex,’ even if only ‘in the sports context,’” Justice Jackson argued. “The Court should have assumed as much while leaving open the possibility that Title IX’s definition of ‘sex’ is more capacious.”