Supreme Court allows state laws regulating transgender athletes

On Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court held that state lawmakers can regulate gender identity in scholastic sports competitions, and in particular, block transgender students born as biological men from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.

On January 13, 2026, the justices heard oral arguments for three hours in both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, a case from Idaho. Tuesday’s decision applied to both cases.

In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.”

Title IX bans discrimination based on sex in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial funds. However, the Education Amendments Act of 1974, known as the Javits Amendment, allows schools receiving funds under Title IX to establish “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports.”

In the case from West Virginia, a parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that a state law banning biological boys who identify as girls from competing on girls’ teams was unconstitutional. A federal court ruled in favor of West Virginia on Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 grounds. A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court decision in favor of the student on the Title IX claim and ruled against the state under the Equal Protection Clause.

In his majority opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to actions taken by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in1975. “HEW promulgated comprehensive regulations requiring that schools provide ‘equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes’ and authorizing ‘separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport,’” he said.

Kavanaugh also held that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” He also rejected claims that the restrictions on trans athletes competing on women’s and men’s sports teams violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

“The challenged West Virginia and Idaho laws make sex-based classifications in limiting female teams to biological females. Under this Court’s equal protection precedents, sex-based classifications are permissible only when the classification is ‘substantially related’ to achieving an ‘important’ government objective. The States argue—and the Court agrees—that the interests of safety and competitive fairness are important interests for purposes of equal protection analysis.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s opinion.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch also filed concurring opinions. Thomas agreed in full with the majority opinion but he added that “transgender status is not a suspect class requiring heightened equal-protection scrutiny.” Gorsuch said his opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) supported the holding in this case. In Bostock, Gorsuch ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. “The Court should have affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s decision to remand for further factfinding,” she said. “Because of the Court’s decision today, West Virginia, and any other state actor, can deny B. P. J. and others like her these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.” Justices Kagan and Jackson joined her concurrence.

Justice Jackson also concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. “The Court did not need to hold that Title IX protects against discrimination solely on the basis of ‘biological sex,’ even if only ‘in the sports context,’” she wrote, citing Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence. “The Court should have assumed as much while leaving open the possibility that Title IX’s definition of ‘sex’ is more capacious.”

While the decision clearly establishes that states may restrict competition in women’s and girls’ scholastic sports by biological sex, the next challenge will likely come from athletes who claim harm in states where transgender athletes are allowed to take part in contests that match their gender identity.

Today, 29 states have laws or policies that prohibit transgender students from competing in sports consistent with their gender identity, while 21 states have no such laws.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.