What's going on at the Supreme Court?

What's going on at the Supreme Court?

The two most recent Supreme Court Cases on the right for transgender athletes to participate in sport aligning with their gender identity are West Virginia v. B. P. J. and Little v. Hecox. B. P. J. is an adolescent transgender girl who has taken hormone suppressors and estrogen treatments and wanted to participate in the girls’ team at her middle school. Hecox is an adult transgender woman who was prohibited from trying out for her collegiate women’s team due to state law. Both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled in favor of B. P. J. and Hecox. The Supreme Court heard arguments on these cases in January of 2026. 

On June 30th, 2026, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 ruling that state actors, including public K-12 schools and colleges, can exclude transgender women from participating on women’s athletic teams without violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling applies only within the realm of athletics that are governed by state actors (for instance: public, K-12 and secondary educational settings). For more information on what a state actor is, see this article. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that whether or not to include sex-based participation or transgender exclusive policies should be left up to each institution. However, he made it clear that exclusion from state actors would be considered legal. This does not mean that state actors must exclude transgender participation, only that the choice to do so would not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ruling does not apply to leagues outside of public schools or those accepting federal funding, such as private recreational club teams and professional leagues. 

Justice Kavanaugh continues to say that restricting participation in interscholastic sport to be based on the sex assigned at birth is "substantially related” to the important government objective of “safety and competitive fairness”. Because of this, the laws restricting participation passed the standard of intermediate scrutiny from the court. Intermediate scrutiny is the degree to which the courts assess a law’s, specifically a law surrounding gender classification, appropriateness and importance to achieving a goal. 

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that, while she agreed that West Virginia’s ban did not violate Title IX, there should have been further investigation into whether or not transgender women and girls who did not experience ‘male’ puberty are “similar” to cisgender women and girls’ athletic ability. Based on that, Justice Sotomayor declared doubts on if West Virginia’s law adequately met the government’s goal, therefore not passing the standard of intermediate scrutiny. 

Ultimately, the June 30th, 2026 ruling from the Supreme Court does not create a universal, nationwide ban for transgender athletes. However, it does allow for bans and restrictive laws to exist legally. States that do not have any restrictive bans or laws are not necessarily impacted by this ruling; states that do have restrictive bans or laws are permitted to keep them in effect. 

Written by JD Dumbrowsky