In a June 30, 2026 decision combining two cases, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that state bans on transgender athletes do not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The landmark holding split 6–3 along ideological lines, overturning appeals court decisions that had previously ruled the bans in Idaho and West Virginia were unconstitutional. The majority also concluded that Title IX permits schools to separate sports teams based on biological sex and that these bans do not violate Title IX’s sex discrimination protections.
With 27 states already enforcing laws that block transgender student-athletes from participating on teams that match their gender identity, the decisions in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox mark a significant victory for the Trump administration and conservative state lawmakers.
A Tale of Two States
Although Idaho and West Virginia are more than two thousand miles apart, lawmakers in both states took a similar approach to transgender athletes: they enacted categorical bans. While the Supreme Court ultimately issued a single decision covering both laws, the two cases had notable factual and procedural differences.
West Virginia passed the Save Women’s Sports Act in 2021, which banned trans athletes from competing regardless of whether puberty blockers had been used. Citing concerns about unfair advantage granted by testosterone produced from male puberty, it was passed at a time when there were no transgender athletes. Previous to its passing, a case-by-case assessment system had been in place since 2016. Becky Pepper-Jackson, an 11-year-old transgender girl, wanted to run cross-country in middle school with her friends, but was told that she couldn’t because of the ban.
With her mother, Heather Jackson, Pepper-Jackson sued West Virginia a month after the ban took effect, alleging violations of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title IX. Although she lost in district court, she and her counsel, Joshua Block of the ACLU, had the summary judgment reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020. It declared that a person’s sex is determined by biology and banned “biological males” from competing in sports with women. It was challenged soon after enactment by Lindsey Hecox, who began her transition at Boise State University and played on a women’s club soccer team. Also alleging violations of the equal protection clause, Hecox won a preliminary injunction against the ban, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld in 2023.
Given the similarities, the cases were heard together. Hecox had asked that the case be dismissed after she stopped playing sports to concentrate on her studies, but SCOTUS opted to hear it anyway.
Title IX and Equal Protection Permit Birth-Sex Team Rules
Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable, given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, and cited West Virginia’s law defining sex in biological terms. He also emphasized fairness and safety concerns and pointed to restrictions adopted by national and international sports bodies, including the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), affecting transgender athletes in women’s sports.
Equal Protection
Under the equal protection clause, sex-based classifications get “intermediate scrutiny”. That means the state has to show that its sex-based law is substantially related to an important governmental interest in order to pass constitutional muster.
Earlier fights over transgender athletes often turned on testosterone levels and individualized assessments of the competing athletes. Under this framework, states would have to prove that allowing transgender athletes would qualify as a safety risk or result in an unfair advantage (important governmental interests). Now, most new state bans draw a hard line at birth: you either were born biologically male or biologically female, and that’s where the line is. Kavanaugh’s opinion embraces that framing. Instead of asking whether any particular transgender girl actually poses a risk or has an unfair advantage, the opinion treats those harms as essentially baked in. If a transgender girl is on the field with cisgender girls, the majority reasons, then the state can assume both safety concerns and competitive disadvantages exist and regulate accordingly.
The majority ultimately concluded that states can prioritize preserving roster spots and opportunities for cisgender girls and women, even when those choices push individual transgender athletes out of competition.
Title IX
The Court reads Title IX’s ban on discrimination “on the basis of sex” as referring to biological sex. Kavanaugh cited the Javits Amendment and 1975 regulations that expressly permit separate sports teams for “members of each sex.” Under that framework, the majority held that schools may define eligibility for women’s and girls’ teams by birth sex and that limiting those teams to “biological females” is a reasonable, Title IX–compliant way to protect safety and competitive fairness.
The majority didn’t answer whether states that allow transgender athletes are violating Title IX. That move leaves inclusive policies on the table, at least for now, but it invites future lawsuits over how far Title IX’s “biological sex” requirement really reaches.
In a dissent joined in part by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced a belief that the majority opinion imposed a hardship and denied the plaintiffs a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate their cases.
The Argument of Biological Sex Versus Gender Rages On
The decision to uphold state laws on transgender athlete bans continues a trend in recent Roberts Court rulings on LGBTQ+ issues, including striking down a Colorado ban against “conversion therapy” in 2026 and allowing a ban to block some medical care for transgender youths in 2025.
The Court’s decision will likely deepen the divide between states that ban transgender athletes and states that permit them to compete on teams matching their gender identity. Future battles may arise in the form of lawsuits by universities in inclusive states challenging the NCAA’s eligibility rules, as schools and athletic associations test how far Title IX and equal protection now reach. For now, transgender student-athletes who wish to compete must pay close attention to the laws in the states where they live, study, or plan to enroll, as their rights and opportunities will vary sharply by jurisdiction.
