The Supreme Court Saves Women’s Sports

Supreme Court Rules States Can Limit Girls’ Sports Participation to Biological Females

In a 6–3 decision issued on June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX do not prohibit states from limiting participation on girls’ and women’s sports teams to biological females. The ruling addressed consolidated cases from West Virginia and Idaho and reversed lower-court decisions that had blocked the state laws.

The cases involved West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. Both statutes define sex according to biological criteria at birth and restrict school-sponsored girls’ teams to biological females. The Fourth Circuit had ruled against the West Virginia law, and the Ninth Circuit had enjoined the Idaho law on equal-protection grounds. The Supreme Court reversed both rulings.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. He stated that Title IX, enacted in 1972, expressly permits sex-specific sports teams. Applying intermediate scrutiny to the equal-protection claims, he concluded that safety and competitive fairness constitute important governmental interests that are substantially advanced by eligibility rules based on biological sex. Kavanaugh rejected the proposition that courts must conduct individualized assessments of hormone-suppressed transgender athletes to determine eligibility, describing such an approach as impractical for consistent application. The opinion noted that average differences between males and females in size, strength, and athletic performance provide a sufficient basis for sex-based classifications under intermediate scrutiny. It also observed that sports competitions allocate limited opportunities, so inclusion of one athlete can displace another.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. He wrote that classifications based on transgender status do not receive heightened scrutiny and described sex as binary and immutable. He further stated that the use of language to obscure observable reality undermines equal treatment of citizens.

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. He emphasized that Title IX is a Spending Clause statute and therefore requires clear notice of any obligations imposed on states. He also addressed the relationship between the present decision and the Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, noting that Bostock interpreted Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment and did not address sports or locker-room facilities.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent acknowledged that Title IX treats sex as binary but argued that the equal-protection issues should have been remanded for further factual development on whether transgender athletes are similarly situated to biological females with respect to competitive advantage.

Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent. She contended that Title IX permits students to compete according to gender identity. In the West Virginia case, she wrote that the state law required the plaintiff, identified as B.P.J., to compete in the boys’ category despite identifying as a girl.

The decision leaves in place statutes in 27 states that restrict girls’ sports participation to biological females. It does not require other states to adopt similar restrictions. The ruling addresses only the constitutionality of exclusionary rules and does not resolve potential future claims that states permitting transgender participation may violate Title IX by failing to provide equal athletic opportunity to biological females.

The original article was written by Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, a nonprofit organization focused on judicial nominations and constitutional issues.