Transgender Students and School Sports: State-by-State Guide

Across the country, states have responded to the national debate over transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports with a wide range of policies:

• Some have passed statutes mandating that participation in school sports be based on birth sex.
• Others adopted laws specifically allowing student-athletes to compete on teams that match their gender identity.
• A few states fall somewhere in between, using case-by-case review systems.

This divide among states is only likely to deepen after the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. Understanding what this means is critical for student-athletes and their families.

In this guide, we cover what the B.P.J. decision means for state policy, Title IX issues, and how future cases unfold. We also provide a breakdown of each state’s approach to transgender student-athletes at the time B.P.J. was decided. However, the ruling will almost certainly prompt changes to several states’ policies.

This dynamic environment can be complicated and overwhelming. In addition to federal and state rules for school sports, separate policies adopted by organizations like the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee govern many athletes and are discussed in our separate article on rules for transgender athletes in college and professional sports.

If you or a loved one is facing issues related to participation in school sports, consider speaking with a lawyer. A civil rights attorney licensed in your state can provide you with the most up-to-date legal guidance and help protect your rights.

In the meantime, let’s start with a quick review of the main legal principles at issue.

Federal Law

Two legal pillars consistently show up in discussions of transgender students and school sports:

• The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)

We briefly examine both below to illustrate how they shape rules for student athletics.

The Equal Protection Clause

The equal protection clause requires states to justify laws that treat one or more groups differently from others. Courts evaluate these laws using different legal standards, depending on the type of classification involved. 

• Laws that discriminate based on race or religion must pass strict scrutiny. This means they must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.
• Laws that treat people differently based on sex or gender are examined under intermediate scrutiny. This means they must be substantially related to an important government interest.
• The lowest standard is rational basis review. Under this test, a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Courts most often apply the rational basis test to questions involving economic rights, such as professional licensing or government benefits.

Before B.P.J., there had been widespread uncertainty about whether state bans on trans student-athletes were adequately justified under the equal protection clause. And while the B.P.J. ruling didn’t settle the broader national debate, it did resolve some of these uncertainties.

Title IX

Title IX operates differently. This federal civil rights law prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions and programs that receive federal funding. This means that virtually all public schools and the vast majority of colleges and universities must comply with Title IX.

Title IX is most well-known for protecting girls’ access to sports in school and addressing incidents of campus sexual assault.

This federal law has allowed sex‑separated sports teams for decades. But courts have disagreed about the application of Title IX when it comes to transgender student-athletes competing on sports teams matching their gender identity.

After the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, a Title VII employment case, it held that firing someone based on their gender identity or sexual orientation qualified as sex discrimination. Several courts and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) read Bostock to support allowing transgender athletes to compete on teams aligned with their gender identity under Title IX. Other courts and several states rejected that approach in the sports context, emphasizing “biological sex” and insisting that Bostock was limited to Title VII.

This split in interpretation left the legality of state‑level bans unsettled until the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. B.P.J.

We explore the decision below.

West Virginia vs. B.P.J.

In June 2026, the Supreme Court issued a consolidated opinion for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (collectively, “B.P.J.”).

Simply put, the Court confirmed that the individual states may enforce bans on trans student-athletes without violating Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.

About the Case

Both cases involved transgender girls challenging state laws that limited participation in girls’ and women’s sports based on biological sex.

West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act required student-athletes to compete on sports teams according to their sex assigned at birth. The plaintiffs in both cases had argued that these restrictions violated the equal protection clause and Title IX.

The Supreme Court upheld both states’ laws. The majority determined that:

• The Constitution and Title IX allow states to exclude transgender girls from female sports teams.
• Separate sports teams based on biological sex are legally reasonable due to physical differences between the sexes.
• Under Title IX, the Court held that ‘sex’ refers to biological sex assigned at birth and not gender identity, at least in the context of sex‑segregated sports teams.

The majority opinion went on to say that neither the Constitution nor Title IX requires states to restructure women’s sports or abandon sex‑based team categories.

What Does the Ruling Mean?

Under the B.P.J. decision, states now have the broad authority to regulate school sports based on biological sex. It doesn’t require the states to adopt such restrictions. But it made clear that they can.

Accordingly, states may pass and enforce laws that base participation on biological sex in girls’ and women’s school sports without violating the equal protection clause or Title IX, so long as they resemble the laws upheld in B.P.J.

The ruling strengthens the legal position of restrictive laws and may invite new Title IX challenges to inclusive policies, though it does not forbid states or schools from maintaining inclusive eligibility rules. And with no nationwide rule in place, a student-athlete’s rights vary significantly depending on where they live.

We explore these effects in the sections that follow.

State Restrictions on Transgender Student-Athlete Participation

As of June 2026, more than 30 states use biological or birth sex to determine eligibility for sex-segregated school sports. Twenty-seven states have laws on the books.

Four states (Alaska, Virginia, Nevada, and Wisconsin) utilize binding agency policies or athletic bylaws.

Regardless of the policy type, B.P.J. effectively upholds all of these restrictions under federal law and Title IX. 

Jurisdictions with Gender Identity Protections

The following jurisdictions explicitly protect the right of transgender student-athletes to join sports teams that match their gender identity.

Most of these protections take the form of rules set by state high school athletic associations. They’re often supported by state laws prohibiting gender-identity discrimination in public schools and school athletics. However, some have passed specific legislation or education department mandates to secure these rights.

States Using Case-by-Case Reviews

A separate group of states neither explicitly protects nor restricts transgender student-athlete participation on female teams. Instead, they rely on individualized reviews to determine eligibility.

Getting Legal Help

To best understand your rights under state law, you’ll want to discuss your situation confidentially with a civil rights attorney who’s well-versed in education law.

While finding someone that fits the bill may sound overwhelming, FindLaw’s directory of civil rights attorneys can get you started. Just click on the state where your school is located to view contact information for several local attorneys who can help.

Your rights are important. Assert them with a skilled and compassionate advocate.