Transgender Athletes at the Supreme Court: What’s at Stake

On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard nearly three and a half hours of oral argument in a pair of closely watched cases challenging state laws that prohibit transgender women and girls from competing on women’s and girls’ school sports teams. By the end of the arguments, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the challengers’ claims and receptive to the states’ defenses.

Although the scope of the Court’s eventual ruling remains uncertain, the arguments suggest that the justices may uphold the laws—marking a significant moment in the Court’s treatment of transgender rights, Title IX, and sex-based classifications.

The cases before the Court

The Court is reviewing two laws, one from Idaho and one from West Virginia, enacted as part of a broader wave of state legislation regulating transgender participation in athletics.

Idaho: Hecox v. Little

Idaho enacted its law in 2020, making it one of the first states to bar transgender women and girls from female sports teams categorically. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who sought to compete in women’s track and cross-country at Boise State University, challenged the law in federal Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of Idaho’s statute, concluding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The panel emphasized that the law was designed to categorically exclude transgender athletes and subject women athletes to invasive sex-verification procedures.

West Virginia: B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

West Virginia followed with a similar law in 2021. The case was brought by the mother of B.P.J., a transgender girl who has identified as female since elementary school and has taken puberty blockers and estrogen. B.P.J. competed on her school’s track and cross-country teams before the law took effect.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked West Virginia’s law on different grounds, holding that it violated Title IX by discriminating based on sex in federally funded educational programs.

What the states argue

Both states grounded their arguments in biology, fairness, and longstanding practice.

Idaho and West Virginia contended that sex—not gender identity—has historically determined athletic eligibility, and that biological differences between males and females correlate strongly with athletic performance. According to the states, their laws are intended to preserve equal opportunities and safety for women and girls.

Crucially, the states rejected the idea that their laws discriminate based on transgender status. Instead, they framed the statutes as neutral sex-based classifications that decline to create exceptions. As Idaho’s solicitor general put it, denying special treatment is not discrimination—it is a policy choice.

The states also warned against individualized, case-by-case exceptions. In their view, allowing as-applied challenges based on hormone levels or medical treatment would undermine administrability and blur the line between boys’ and girls’ sports more broadly.

The challengers’ case

Attorneys for Hecox and B.P.J. countered that both Title IX and the Constitution are designed to protect individuals from exclusion and stigma.

They argued that transgender girls like B.P.J. do not possess the competitive advantages the laws target, particularly when they have undergone medical treatment that suppresses puberty-related changes. Excluding such athletes, they contended, serves no legitimate purpose and instead denies them all meaningful athletic opportunities while separating them from their peers.

The challengers emphasized that these cases are not about eliminating sex-separated sports but about whether blanket bans can constitutionally apply to every transgender athlete, regardless of individual circumstances.

Signals from the justices

The justices’ questioning revealed a Court divided less over values than over institutional role and legal limits.

Skepticism from the conservative justices

Several conservative justices expressed concern that the challengers were seeking an exception to the biological definition of sex that could extend beyond athletics. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the case amounted to a broader challenge to sex-based distinctions themselves.

Justice Clarence Thomas raised hypotheticals involving cisgender male athletes attempting to exploit exceptions, suggesting concern about administrability. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the laws truly discriminate based on transgender status if transgender boys remain eligible for boys’ teams.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized scientific uncertainty and noted that states have taken divergent approaches. He suggested the Court should be cautious about constitutionalizing a single national rule while policy debates remain unresolved.

A narrower focus from the liberal justices

The Court’s three Democratic appointees appeared to recognize the uphill battle the challengers faced. Their questioning focused on limiting the damage of a loss, asking whether individuals who lack the advantages cited by the states should be able to bring as-applied challenges.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, pressed the states on whether athletes who do not pose the fairness or safety concerns identified by the laws should still be categorically excluded.

Title IX and the Spending Clause

One of the most significant fault lines concerned Title IX.

Justice Neil Gorsuch—who authored the Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County extending employment discrimination protections to LGBTQ employees—appeared conflicted. While initially pushing back against the idea that transgender people are not a protected class, he later suggested that Title IX’s status as Spending Clause legislation requires Congress to speak with exceptional clarity.

Because Title IX explicitly permits sex-separated sports teams, Gorsuch questioned whether states in 1972 would have understood “sex” to include gender identity. If not, he suggested, imposing that interpretation now could exceed constitutional limits.

The federal government’s role

The Trump administration urged the Court to uphold the laws under a deferential standard, arguing that states need only show a “reasonable fit” between their goal of fairness in women’s sports and the exclusion of transgender athletes.

Importantly, the administration asked the Court to rule narrowly—clarifying that a decision upholding Idaho and West Virginia’s laws should not be read to invalidate states that choose to allow transgender participation.

What happens next

Based on the arguments, several outcomes appear possible:

• A broad ruling upholding the bans under both the Constitution and Title IX
• A narrower decision limited to these specific statutes
• A verdict that forecloses as-applied challenges while leaving future legislative debates intact

What seems unlikely is a sweeping decision requiring states to permit transgender athletes to compete on teams matching their gender identity.

Why this case matters

Although framed as a debate over school sports, the case carries far-reaching consequences. It will shape how courts understand sex-based classifications, the scope of Title IX, and the extent to which transgender individuals can seek individualized constitutional protections.

More broadly, the case reflects a Supreme Court increasingly reluctant to resolve culturally contested questions through expansive constitutional rulings—preferring instead to leave space for states to decide, even when the consequences for affected individuals are profound.

When the Court issues its decision later this year, it will not just determine who can compete on which teams. It will signal how far constitutional and statutory equality protections extend—and where the Court believes their limits lie.

This article's content was created with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence.
Read our policy on AI here.
We never publish purely AI-generated content.