Court’s Decision Gives Republican-Led States More Power Over Who Can Compete On Girls’ And Women’s Teams
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from competing on school athletic teams that align with their gender identity, delivering another major setback for transgender rights and reshaping the legal landscape around school sports.
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority ruled that bans in Idaho and West Virginia do not violate the Constitution. The justices also unanimously agreed that the restrictions do not violate Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.
Writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said states may preserve girls’ and women’s athletic teams for “biological females,” a line that is expected to strengthen similar restrictions already adopted in more than two dozen Republican-led states.
Supreme Court Backs Idaho And West Virginia Sports Bans
The cases before the court centered on two transgender athletes: Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 16-year-old high school student from West Virginia, and Lindsay Hecox, a former Boise State University student in Idaho.
Pepper-Jackson has publicly identified as a girl since age 8, has taken puberty-blocking medication and has a West Virginia birth certificate recognizing her as female. She was the only transgender student known to have sought to compete in girls’ sports in West Virginia.
Her case drew national attention after she became a statewide champion in the shot put, winning last month’s West Virginia championship meet by two feet.
In Idaho, Hecox sued over the state’s first-in-the-nation transgender athlete ban after seeking the chance to try out for Boise State’s women’s track and cross-country teams. Her attorney told the court during January arguments that Hecox did not make either team because “she was too slow,” though she had participated in club-level soccer and running.
Title IX Question Leaves Broader Fight Unfinished
While Tuesday’s ruling gives states more authority to enforce transgender athlete bans, it does not settle every legal question surrounding transgender participation in sports.
Still unresolved are challenges to state laws and policies in places such as Connecticut and California, where transgender athletes are allowed to compete consistent with their gender identity.
The decision also follows a broader pattern from the court’s conservative majority. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ workers are protected under a landmark federal civil rights law banning sex discrimination in employment. But last year, the same six conservative justices declined to extend that type of reasoning when they upheld state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
Supporters of the athlete bans argue the restrictions are needed to protect fairness and safety in girls’ and women’s sports. Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst told the court that the state’s law was “necessary for fair competition because, where sports are concerned, men and women are obviously not the same.”
Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson pushed back, arguing that her early transition and use of puberty blockers meant she did not have the athletic advantages the state claimed it was trying to regulate.
Also Read: Birthright Citizenship Upheld As Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Restrictions
Sports Figures, Public Opinion Split Over Transgender Athletes
The case drew attention from major names in sports on both sides of the debate.
Tennis legend Martina Navratilova, swimmers Summer Sanders and Donna de Varona, and beach volleyball player Kerri Walsh Jennings supported the state bans. Soccer stars Megan Rapinoe and Becky Sauerbrunn, along with basketball players Sue Bird and Breanna Stewart, backed the transgender athletes.
The issue has taken on national political significance despite the small number of transgender athletes competing at the college level. NCAA President Charlie Baker told Congress in 2024 that he knew of only 10 transgender athletes among more than half a million college athletes.
After President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at barring transgender women from women’s sports, both the NCAA and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committees moved to ban transgender women from women’s competition.
Public opinion has also leaned toward restrictions. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in October 2025 found that about 6 in 10 U.S. adults supported requiring transgender children and teenagers to compete only on teams matching the sex they were assigned at birth. About 2 in 10 opposed that position, while roughly one-quarter did not have an opinion.
Ruling Marks Another Setback For Transgender Rights
The ruling is expected to have immediate consequences far beyond Idaho and West Virginia. More than two dozen states have similar bans on transgender girls and women competing in girls’ and women’s school sports, and Tuesday’s decision gives those laws stronger constitutional footing.
For transgender rights advocates, the ruling represents another major loss at the Supreme Court after a year of decisions limiting legal protections for transgender Americans.
For states defending the bans, the ruling affirms their authority to draw sex-based lines in school athletics.
The broader debate, however, is far from over. With lawsuits still pending in states that allow transgender athletes to compete consistent with their gender identity, the Supreme Court’s decision answers one question while leaving the next round of the fight already waiting at the courthouse door.
