The US Supreme Court has ruled that states may restrict transgender girls and women from participating on girls’ and women’s school sports teams, delivering a landmark 6-3 decision that settles two long-running legal disputes over state athletic eligibility laws.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that states may determine eligibility for female school sports based on biological sex without violating either the US Constitution or Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. The ruling affirms state authority to enforce laws limiting participation to students whose biological sex, as listed on their original birth certificates, aligns with the category in which they seek to compete.
The decision resolves challenges to Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, both of which had faced years of litigation in the federal courts.
The Idaho case was brought by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who sought to compete on Boise State University’s women’s cross-country team. Hecox and a teammate argued that the state law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying transgender athletes equal access to school sports.
The West Virginia case involved Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender student who challenged a state law preventing her from participating on girls’ cross-country and track teams. Her legal challenge contended that the restrictions breached both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
In its opinion, the majority relied on the court’s earlier decision in United States v. Skrmetti, finding that the disputed laws distinguish competitors on the basis of biological sex rather than gender identity. The court also rejected the idea of requiring judges to evaluate the individual effects of hormone therapy or puberty blockers on athletic performance, describing such case-by-case assessments as impractical and inconsistent.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority alongside Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Thomas and Gorsuch each issued separate concurring opinions, with Thomas arguing that legal recognition of women’s sports should remain grounded in biological sex.
Kavanaugh concluded by acknowledging the deeply personal nature of the issue, stating that all student-athletes deserve dignity and respect regardless of the legal outcome and should not face hostility because of the ongoing national debate.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the majority extended its constitutional analysis beyond what was necessary to resolve the cases. While agreeing that Pepper-Jackson’s Title IX claim was unlikely to prevail, Sotomayor maintained that the Equal Protection challenge warranted closer judicial examination to determine whether the states’ fairness and safety justifications applied in individual circumstances.
Justice Jackson also wrote separately, asserting that the majority adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of Title IX by tying its protections exclusively to sex assigned at birth rather than allowing consideration of gender identity.
The ruling immediately drew criticism from LGBTQ+ rights organizations, which argued that it effectively excludes transgender students from equal participation in school athletics rather than balancing competing interests. Advocacy groups also warned that such restrictions could have broader social and mental health consequences for transgender and nonbinary youth.
Supporters of the decision welcomed the outcome, describing it as a reaffirmation of protections for women’s sports and a recognition of the original purpose of Title IX. They argued that states should retain the authority to establish eligibility standards intended to preserve competitive fairness.
Legal experts involved in the litigation noted that the judgment does not compel other states to enact similar restrictions. They also emphasized that broader federal protections against discrimination affecting LGBTQ+ students under Title IX remain in place, even as the court clarified that states may adopt biological sex-based eligibility rules for school athletics.
