Supreme Court Upholds State Bans on Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports

On July 2 2026 the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, affirmed Idaho’s and West Virginia’s statutes that bar athletes assigned male at birth from competing on women’s and girls’ teams. The majority held the laws do not violate Title IX or the Fourteenth Amendment.

Washington Monthly

The Court distinguished Title IX from Title VII, the basis of the 2020 Bostock decision that extended workplace anti-discrimination protections to transgender people. The majority invoked the 1974 Javits Amendment, allowing sex-segregated athletics to promote equal opportunities for female students.

Washington Monthly

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and five other conservatives. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented with Justices Kagan and Jackson. Plaintiffs Lindsay Hecox and Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.) challenged Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act.

CNN

Twenty-seven states now ban transgender women from women’s sports, while 23 states allow participation based on gender identity. A 2025 Pew poll found 66 % of Americans support competition based on sex assigned at birth and 56 % favor bans on gender-affirming care for minors. Transgender people represent about 1 % of the U.S. population.

Washington Monthly

The Department of Justice filed suits against California and other states that permit transgender athletes to compete on teams matching gender identity. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the ruling will apply to locker rooms and bathrooms; West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey warned judges will likely use the language in future cases. California’s attorney general said the state will review the decision for impact on ongoing litigation.

The Hill

LGBTQ groups called the ruling a “setback” for civil-rights protections. Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights warned it “further entrenches discrimination.” Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argued the case should be sent back for fact-finding on actual physiological advantages. Critics also noted the Court’s use of “biological male” language as dismissive of transgender identities.

The Hill

• “Law is being used to scapegoat transgender people,” — Suzanne Goldberg, Columbia University law professor

CNN

• “Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” — Justice Brett Kavanaugh

CNN

• “Sports, of course, are often zero sum,” — Justice Sonia Sotomayor

CNN

Sources differ on the scientific basis for the bans. Proponents cite testosterone-driven physiological advantages, while the plaintiffs’ evidence shows that hormone therapy can neutralize such differences. The Court’s opinion does not address the underlying medical data, leaving the scientific dispute unresolved.

Washington Monthly

The Court’s interpretation of Title IX is expected to shape pending lawsuits over bathroom and locker-room access and to inform future challenges to state bans on gender-affirming care. The Supreme Court has added two LGBTQ-related cases to its docket for the next term, including a challenge to Colorado’s “equal-opportunity” preschool mandate and a dispute over parental rights in Washington state’s gender-affirming treatment disclosures.

The Hill