Transgender Athlete Bans: State Laws and SCOTUS Ruling

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the consolidated cases West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. The Court held that schools may limit women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females without violating Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision means that West Virginia and Idaho, along with the 25 other states with similar bans on transgender athletes, may continue to enforce those laws. This decision has national implications for schools, state legislatures, and transgender rights.

Read on to learn more about the case background and broader implications of the Court’s ruling on transgender issues. If you need help protecting your civil rights, contact an experienced civil rights attorney in your area.

The State Laws at Issue in B.P.J. and Hecox

Two state laws prompted the litigation at issue in these cases and shaped the legal questions that came before the U.S. Supreme Court.

West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act

Enacted in 2021, West Virginia’s law, the Save Women’s Sports Act, requires that athletes’ participation in sporting events be based on their biological sex at birth. The law prohibits individuals who were designated male at birth from competing on female teams in public schools, from secondary school through college. The legislature framed the law as a means to protect equal athletic opportunity for women and girls.

The main defenders of this law are the State of West Virginia, along with the state board of education, a county board of education, two state education officials, and a former soccer player who joined the lawsuit to defend the law.

Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act

Enacted in 2020, Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act imposes a similar restriction on participation in women’s sports. It was the first law of its kind in the United States and bans the participation of transgender women and girls on women’s and girls’ sports teams in public schools at all levels.

Idaho’s law also defines sex as based on biology. The legislature’s findings in Idaho include data about physical differences and competitive fairness.

The governor of Idaho is the primary defender of the law, along with Boise State University, various state and local officials, and two collegiate athletes who joined the lawsuit in its defense.

The Plaintiffs in B.P.J. and Hecox

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear both Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. in a consolidated case. Both cases involved transgender women.

Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.)

The plaintiff in the West Virginia case is a student who sought to participate in the girls’ middle school sports teams.

The student had identified as female since the third grade, had taken puberty blockers, and had received hormone therapy with estrogen. B.P.J.’s mother, Heather Jackson, went to court on her behalf. The plaintiff argued that West Virginia’s law violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

Lindsay Hecox

The Idaho case involved a student-athlete plaintiff who challenged Idaho’s ban. She filed the lawsuit when trying out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University in Idaho. Hecox did not make the NCAA teams at Boise State University but was on the women’s club soccer team.

Procedural History of B.P.J. and Hecox

Both cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court after years of litigation in the lower courts.

The Idaho Case

In 2020, a federal district court in Idaho temporarily barred the state from enforcing the law. The court concluded that the law likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling, concluding that the ban discriminates based on transgender status in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that to ban transgender women’s participation on teams that matched their gender identity was discrimination on the basis of sex.

For a variety of reasons, Hecox asked the justices to dismiss her case as moot, meaning no longer a live controversy to decide. She requested that the justices send the case back to the lower court with directions to dismiss it. Idaho argued that the case was not moot. It continued to be injured by the Ninth Circuit’s decision, arguing that it cannot enforce its own law.

The West Virginia Case

In 2021, the district court in West Virginia issued an order temporarily barring the state from enforcing its law against B.P.J. That ruling allowed B.P.J. to participate in middle school girls’ track and cross-country teams while the litigation continued. The judge issued a ruling in the state’s favor.

The plaintiff appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the ruling. The Fourth Circuit found that the law violated Title IX by discriminating against B.P.J. on the basis of sex, and it barred West Virginia from enforcing it. The state then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and allow the district court’s ruling to take effect while litigation continued.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear B.P.J. and Hecox

In 2024, Idaho and West Virginia filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the lower courts’ rulings. After the Court handed down its 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on certain forms of medical treatment for transgender minors, the Court took both cases together to resolve the conflict.

On February 5, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the federal government to revoke school funding for schools that allow transgender student-athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams. The U.S. Solicitor General filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, calling the Idaho and West Virginia laws eminently reasonable.

Main Arguments on the State Bans

On January 13, 2026, the Court held oral arguments on the consolidated cases.

Arguments Supporting the Bans

Proponents of the bans argued that biological males retain athletic advantages relevant to sports. They also contended that separate female categories protect fairness and safety. Title IX was designed to support the rights of women and girls, not erase sex-based sports distinctions. Legislatures are allowed to create broad rules instead of case-by-case exceptions.

Arguments Challenging the Bans

Those challenging the transgender athlete bans say that they unfairly single out transgender girls. They argue that the law treats them differently as a group. They contend that not every transgender girl has the physical advantages states claim, especially those who never went through male puberty, so a blanket ban goes too far.

In their view, excluding transgender athletes undermines dignity and denies equal opportunity. They also believe that it limits participation.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in B.P.J. and Hecox

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the 6-3 majority, held that Idaho and West Virginia’s laws may lawfully restrict girls’ and women’s sports teams to biological females under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In its decision, the Court examined important civil rights precedent, including:

• United States v. Virginia (1996). The source of the modern intermediate scrutiny framework for sex classifications.
• United States v. Skrmetti (2025). Upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain forms of medical treatment for transgender minors under a rational basis review of the law because it found that the Tennessee law did not draw classifications based on sex.
• Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Central to the challengers’ statutory argument because it is a case that is important as a competing model for interpreting discrimination “because of sex.”

The Court’s Reasoning

The majority’s opinion offered the following reasoning to support its decision:

• Biological differences matter in sports. Males and females have inherent physical differences. And these differences are relevant to sports, such as size, strength, and speed.
• Separate teams are justified on grounds of fairness and safety. Because physical differences that confer an athletic advantage on males in some sports exist, these differences can undermine competitive fairness and create safety concerns, especially in contact sports.
• Title IX uses “sex” to mean biological sex. Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded educational programs. The ordinary meaning of “sex” was used when Title IX and its regulations were adopted. The law allows separate teams for each sex, and states can permit women’s teams to include only biological females.
• The laws were considered “reasonable.” The Court rejected the argument that the exclusions were not reasonable under Title IX, finding that many states and major athletic bodies have adopted similar reasoning. The majority distinguished Bostock and found that it (an employment law case) did not control in the sports context.
• The laws also survive constitutional review under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny to the statutes because it found them to be sex-based classifications. It found that the laws were substantially related to important government interests: protecting safety and preserving competitive fairness in women’s sports.
• No need for individualized exceptions. The Court found that states do not need to create case-by-case exemptions for transgender athletes who have taken puberty blockers or hormones. Legislatures and schools, it asserted, are better suited than courts for resolving disputed medical and scientific questions.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion asserted that the majority opinion allows a state to deny B.P.J. and others like her the benefits of playing sports simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts do not support that finding.

The Impact of the B.P.J. and Hecox Ruling on Transgender Rights

The Court ruled that state bans on transgender athletes do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. The Court treated women’s sports as a constitutionally and statutorily protected sex-based category.

The immediate impact of the ruling is to strengthen state bans on transgender athletes and provide constitutional and statutory support for similar laws in other states. The decision also weakens challenges to sports bans under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court’s decision, however, did not answer all related questions about transgender athlete bans. For example, it did not decide:

• Whether schools may choose to allow transgender athlete participation
• How the Court’s reasoning applies outside the context of athletics
• Whether issues relating to bathrooms, locker rooms, or other school policies will be treated in a similar manner

The decision leaves open the possibility of future litigation in areas such as education, healthcare, and other forms of exclusion. The decision, however, becomes a foundational precedent in future transgender-rights cases.

Transgender Student Athlete Laws and Policies by State

The following table summarizes state laws and policies regarding transgender athletes in school sports following the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

State	School Sports Transgender Policy	State Statute / Regulation / Guidance / Policy
Alabama	Restricted to biological sex	Ala. Code § 16-1-52
Alaska	Restricted to biological sex	4 AAC 06.115
Arizona	Restricted to biological sex	Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-120.02
Arkansas	Restricted to birth certificate sex	Ark. Code Ann. § 6-1-107
California	Participation based on gender identity	Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5(f)
Colorado	Case-by-case review	CHSAA Transgender Inclusion Bylaw
Connecticut	Participation based on gender identity	CIAC Gender Identity Policy
Delaware	Case-by-case review	DIAA Regulation 8.5
Florida	Restricted to biological sex	Fla. Stat. § 1006.205
Georgia	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	SB 1: Fair and Safe Athletic Opportunities Act
Hawaii	Case-by-case review	HDOE Guidance
Idaho	Restricted to biological sex	Idaho Code § 33-6203
Illinois	Participation based on gender identity	IHSA Policy 1.150
Indiana	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	Ind. Code § 20-33-13
Iowa	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	Iowa Code § 261I.2
Kansas	Restricted to biological sex	Kansas HB 2238
Kentucky	Restricted to biological sex	Ky. Rev. Stat. § 156.070
Louisiana	Restricted to biological sex	La. Rev. Stat. § 4:443
Maine	Case-by-case review	MPA Transgender Policy
Maryland	Participation based on gender identity	MPSSAA Guidance
Massachusetts	Participation based on gender identity	MIAA Policy
Michigan	Case-by-case review	MHSAA Transgender Athlete Policy
Minnesota	Participation based on gender identity	MSHSL Transgender Student Policy
Mississippi	Restricted to biological sex	Miss. Code Ann. § 37-97-1
Missouri	Restricted to biological sex	Mo. Rev. Stat. § 163.048
Montana	Restricted to biological sex	Mont. Code Ann. § 20-7-1306
Nebraska	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	NSAA Gender Identity Policy
Nevada	Restricted to birth certificate sex	NIAA Student Eligibility and Participation Position
New Hampshire	Restricted to biological sex	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193:41
New Jersey	Participation based on gender identity	NJSIAA Transgender Policy
New Mexico	Original or amended birth certificate	New Mexico Activities Association Policy
New York	Participation based on gender identity	NYSPHSAA Transgender Policy
North Carolina	Restricted to biological sex	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-407.55
North Dakota	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	N.D. Cent. Code § 15.1-41-01
Ohio	Restricted to biological sex	Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.5319
Oklahoma	Restricted to biological sex	Okla. Stat. Tit. 70, § 27-106
Oregon	Participation based on gender identity	OSAA Transgender Policy
Pennsylvania	Restricted to biological sex	PIAA Transgender Policy
Rhode Island	Participation based on gender identity	RIIL Transgender Guidance
South Carolina	Restricted to biological sex	S.C. Code Ann. § 59-1-500
South Dakota	Restricted to biological sex	S.D. Codified Laws § 13-67-1
Tennessee	Restricted to birth certificate sex	Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-310
Texas	Restricted to birth certificate sex	Tex. Educ. Code § 33.0834
Utah	Restricted to birth certificate sex	Utah Code Ann. § 53G-6-1004
Vermont	Participation based on gender identity	VPA Gender Identity Policy
Virginia	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	VDOE Model Policies
Washington	Participation based on gender identity	WIAA Handbook Rule 18.66.0
Washington, D.C.	Participation based on gender identity	DCPS Transgender Policy
West Virginia	Restricted to biological sex	W. Va. Code § 18-2-25d
Wisconsin	Restricted to sex assigned at birth for girls’ sports	WIAA Transgender Policy
Wyoming	Restricted to sex assigned at birth	Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-25-101

Get Legal Help from a Civil Rights Attorney

While the Court’s ruling settles one major legal question, it does not end the broader national conflict over transgender rights, equality, and participation in public life, and related issues such as nonbinary and gender-nonconforming students’ rights, among other issues.

Civil rights laws are essential for advancing equality and combating systemic discrimination and prejudice. These laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allow individuals to assert their rights and seek remedies when civil rights are violated.

To get legal help with your civil rights issue or to learn how to protect your rights, contact an experienced civil rights attorney in your area.