10
Loading video...
By Andrew Stanton
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Nearly 30 states have laws regulating the participation of transgender athletes in youth sports, as the Supreme Court handed down an opinion ruling that Idaho and West Virginia's bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.
The Supreme Court's rulings come amid an ongoing national debate about how transgender athletes should be included in sports, as well as broader questions about the rights of the transgender community. It represents a win for the Trump administration, which has advocated for these bans.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 establishing that gender identity "cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex," which the order defines as "not changeable" and "grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."
Read More on U.S.
Beyond Trump's federal policy, current laws vary state-by-state, with more conservative states issuing stricter laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on sports teams that correspond with their sex assigned at birth.
How Did the Supreme Court Rule?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court, which ruled that schools can determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex rather than gender identity under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
"The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes," Kavanaugh wrote.
Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Thomas and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part but also dissenting in part, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson also filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
...
The ruling addressed two consolidated cases: Little v. Hecox, out of Idaho, and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Idaho and West Virginia were among the first states to implement bans on transgender athletes.
In the Idaho case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2020 law barring transgender women and girls from female teams as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In the West Virginia case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar 2021 law prohibiting transgender girls from female teams under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the two cases in January and appeared poised at the time to allow the bans to remain in place.
Which States Have Transgender Sports Bans?
Twenty-seven states have laws limiting the participation of transgender athletes, according to the nonprofit Movement Advancement Project (MAP), which tracks these laws nationwide.
The states with these bans include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, according to MAP.
Two others, Alaska and Virginia, have bans via state regulation or agency policy.
What This Means for Transgender Rights Nationwide
Whether or not the ruling has implications beyond sports depends on how courts interpret it, Ryan Thoreson, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati, told Newsweek.
The ruling “raises red flags” for transgender rights, he said.
“The court repeatedly points to specific concerns in the field of sports, but the court's willingness to treat restrictions based on biological sex as benign and ignore the serious harm they inflict on transgender people is a worrying sign for litigation around bathrooms, pronouns, driver's licenses, birth certificates, passports, the military ban, and many other laws and policies that are erasing recognition of transgender people's gender identity and undermining their rights,” Thoreson said.
The immediate impact of the ruling is that “state bans on transgender athletes' participation can be freely enforced, even in states where courts had halted their enforcement on federal law grounds, and that trans kids will be unable to play sports with their peers,” he said.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek the ruling is “very significant” for transgender rights beyond just sports, with the logic potentially extending to other sex-segregated spaces like bathrooms or locker rooms.
“Anything where it’s segregated based on biological sex, you are going to see those types of laws in red states be upheld. I see a lot of the same logic from this case apply to there,” he said.
Related Story
Sonia Sotomayor Uses Amy Coney Barrett’s Words Against Her in Trans Case
Joshua Block, ACLU counsel who represented the respondent in the West Virginia case, called the ruling “a devastating ruling for the transgender girls who just want to have the same opportunities that other girls do” on CNN.
“At the same time, it’s a fairly narrow decision. It applies only in the context of sports. It doesn’t say that states can’t choose to allow transgender girls if they want to, and the court didn’t give the sweeping sort of ruling that the other side was asking for,” he said.
West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey praised the ruling.
“For far too long, Americans watched as this debate unfolded and wondered whether the promise made to generations of women and girls would endure. Today, the Supreme Court answered that question,” he wrote in a statement. “The protections established under Title IX remain meaningful, the integrity of women's sports remains worth preserving, and states retain the authority to defend fair competition.”
Kavanaugh's Ruling Explained
Kavanaugh wrote that the "ordinary meaning" of the word "sex" when Title IX was passed in 1972 was biological sex, rather than gender identity and that Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams "precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes—namely, the inherent physical differences between biological women and biological men."
"Put simply, the statute and regulations do not speak to that issue in a way that could properly be interpreted to require schools to allow biological males to participate in women’s and girls’ sports," he wrote.
The court found that separate sports teams for "biological males and biological females are reasonable," given "inherent" differences between the sexes, Kavanaugh wrote. He raised concerns that "allowing biological males to play on women’s and girls’ sports teams can put women and girls at significant risk of injuries."
"Whether biological males may participate on women’s and girls’ sports teams may be a debated policy question. But the legal question for Title IX purposes is whether West Virginia may limit women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females," he wrote.
This media contains content some readers may find distressing or offensive. Viewer discretion is advised.
Click to display
...
Liberal Justices Dissent—In Part
Sotomayor issued an opinion in part concurring and dissenting from the majority opinion. She wrote that the court should have sent the case back to a lower court for further factfinding, raising concerns that the court's "equal
protection precedents require a very different approach" to the case.
She wrote that the Equal Protection Clause "demands much more when a State deploys a sex classification to achieve legislative aims."
"Perhaps West Virginia could meet those demands. Perhaps not. In either event, because unresolved factual questions prevent the Court from assessing the merits of B. P. J.’s equal protection claim at this time, the Court should allow the District Court to address those factual questions in the first instance," she wrote.
LGBTQ+ Groups Oppose Ruling
Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black said in a statement that the ruling “has nothing to do with safety or fairness in sports” and is only meant to “send a message to transgender and nonbinary young people that says, ‘you don’t belong.’”
“Thoughtful discussion about rules and regulations is one thing, but banning an entire demographic of young people from all participation whatsoever is unacceptable,” Black wrote. “These blanket bans lack balance, impacting all transgender youth regardless of age, sport, or level of competition.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said the ruling is “heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are.”
“When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote.
Trump, Conservatives Celebrate 'Big Win'
Trump supported the ruling in a post to Truth Social.
"BIG WIN: The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS. Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP," he wrote.
Other conservatives also backed the ruling.
"The Supreme Court rules that it's not unconstitutional for states to have sport categories exclusively for women. This ruling doesn't mean they MUST have women's sports, just that it's not illegal if they do. Nonetheless, it's a victory!" activist Riley Gaines wrote to X.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said the ruling "affirms a simple truth: Men DO NOT belong in women’s sports."
"Every girl deserves a level, equal playing field, and the chance to compete based on her talent, hard work, and determination. For 54 years, Title IX has protected and expanded opportunities for female athletes. Those hard-fought gains must be defended now more than ever as the radical left seeks to redefine 'woman' and undermine women’s rights at every turn," Johnson wrote on X.
...
Why Are Transgender Athletes Banned?
Critics have pushed for rules barring transgender women from participating alongside other women. Proponents of these bans argue that even after somebody transitions, they may still retain physical advantages over cisgender women and girls, which would raise questions of fairness and safety.
Others, however, have argued that those policies would be unfair to transgender athletes and have accused conservatives of using the issue to attack the transgender community.
The Supreme Court has weighed in on other cases related to transgender rights. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, one of the most critical cases of the term regarding LGBTQ+ rights.
During arguments, Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst defended the state’s law, saying that opponents of the ban are “seeking special treatment for males who allegedly lack an unfair advantage but only if those males also identify as transgender.
“Denying special treatment isn't classifying on the basis of transgender status. It's consciously choosing not to. Idaho's sex-based classification would get intermediate scrutiny if Hecox challenged it. But Hecox's requested relief presupposes separate women's sports. All Hecox challenges is the law's application to a tiny subset of males who identify as transgender and suppress their testosterone,” he said.
Block, who defended the respondent in the West Virginia case, argued that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause would protect trans students’ rights to play on teams that correspond with their gender identity if evidence shows there is “no difference” between trans girls and cisgender girls.
Americans Back Trans Sports Bans—Polls
Polling suggests that a majority of Americans are in support of laws regulating the participation of transgender athletes.
In February 2025, the Pew Research Center found that 66 percent of Americans support requiring trans athletes to compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth.
With regard to other trans issues, 49 percent supported requiring transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding with the sex they were assigned at birth, while 56 percent said they support making it illegal for healthcare professionals to provide minors with gender affirming care.
That poll was conducted from February 10-17, 2025.
According to a YouGov poll, 64 percent of Americans oppose allowing transgender student athletes to play on sports teams that match their identity; only 19 percent support doing so. It surveyed 1,606 adults from June 6-29, 2026, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines