Supreme Court rules 6-3 states may limit girls' sports to biological females under Title IX, Constitution

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision expected to reshape school athletics nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox that states may limit participation in girls' and women's school sports to biological females without violating either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ruling stems from legal challenges brought by transgender students against state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that restrict participation on girls’ sports teams to students assigned female at birth. The students argued that these laws unfairly excluded them from school athletics and violated federal anti-discrimination protections.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court reversed lower court rulings that had sided with the students, concluding that schools may determine eligibility for female athletic teams based on biological sex.

"The answer is yes," Kavanaugh wrote. "Schools may determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex."

How the case came to the Supreme Court

The dispute began when several states passed laws in recent years aimed at regulating participation in school sports based on biological sex. Supporters of these laws argued they were necessary to preserve fairness and safety in women’s athletics, while opponents said they discriminated against transgender students.

In West Virginia, a transgender middle school student identified as B.P.J. challenged a state law that barred her from competing on girls’ teams. Similarly, in Idaho, a transgender college athlete challenged a law requiring athletes to compete based on their biological sex.

Lower federal courts initially blocked enforcement of these laws, finding they likely violated Title IX and constitutional protections. Those rulings created uncertainty nationwide, prompting appeals that ultimately brought the issue before the Supreme Court.

What Title IX is and why it matters

At the center of the case is Title IX, a federal law passed in 1972 that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. Title IX is widely credited with dramatically expanding opportunities for women and girls in education and athletics.

The key legal question was how to interpret the word "sex" in the law—whether it refers strictly to biological sex or includes gender identity.

The Supreme Court’s majority concluded that when Congress passed Title IX, it understood "sex" to mean biological sex, and that interpretation still governs today.

The majority centered its opinion on the original purpose of Title IX, describing the law as one that transformed opportunities for women and girls in sports over the past five decades.

Kavanaugh wrote that separate athletic teams exist because of "enduring" physical differences between the sexes and concluded those distinctions remain legally permissible to preserve equal athletic opportunities.

The Court rejected arguments that transgender girls who have undergone puberty blockers or hormone therapy must be allowed to compete on girls' teams, finding neither Title IX nor its implementing regulations require schools to create exceptions based on gender identity or medical treatment.

The majority concluded states have important governmental interests in protecting both the safety of female athletes and competitive fairness.

The opinion emphasized that athletic competition is "zero sum," meaning that opportunities such as roster spots, scholarships and championships are limited. According to the Court, allowing biological males to compete in female sports could reduce opportunities for female athletes.

The Court also pointed to potential safety concerns, particularly in contact sports, and ruled that states are not required to evaluate transgender athletes individually based on hormone levels or medical treatment.

Instead, legislatures may adopt broad eligibility rules based on biological sex without violating the Equal Protection Clause.

The opinion acknowledged that scientists and medical experts disagree about how hormone therapy and puberty blockers affect athletic performance.

Rather than resolving those debates itself, the Court said elected lawmakers are better positioned to weigh competing evidence and set policy.

The majority also noted that many governing bodies—including the NCAA and international sports organizations—have recently adopted policies limiting female competition to biological females.

Court distinguishes earlier transgender rights ruling

The Court rejected comparisons to its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that federal employment law protects workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

According to the majority, employment discrimination and athletic competition are fundamentally different contexts, especially because Title IX explicitly allows schools to separate teams by sex.

Strong dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a separate opinion.

The dissent argued that the majority failed to fully consider the rights of transgender students and misapplied both Title IX and constitutional protections. It warned that the ruling could lead to broader exclusion of transgender individuals from educational opportunities.

Nationwide impact

The decision resolves the specific disputes in West Virginia and Idaho and provides legal backing for similar laws in 27 states that restrict girls’ and women’s sports to biological females.

More broadly, the ruling clarifies how federal law applies to transgender participation in school athletics, likely influencing ongoing and future legal challenges across the country.

However, the Court emphasized that its decision is limited. It does not address whether schools may voluntarily allow transgender athletes to compete on girls’ teams, nor does it resolve questions about participation in boys’ or coeducational sports.