WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, June 30, that states may maintain separate sports teams for girls and women based on biological sex without violating Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Schools, athletic associations and state legislatures now have firmer ground to prioritize competitive fairness and safety for biological females in sex-segregated sports.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is such a big win for female athletes in Washington and across the country. As a female student-athlete who has competed against boys in girls’ sports, this issue has been deeply personal to me,” Ahnaleigh Wilson, a high school track athlete in East Wenatchee who has been outspoken in defending girls’ rights in Washington State wrote on the ruling. “I know the dedication, sacrifice, and countless hours of training that girls like me invest in the sports they love. We deserve the opportunity to compete on a fair and level playing field.”
For West Virginia et al. v. B. P. J., by her next friend and mother, Heather Jackson (No. 24-43) and the consolidated case Little, Governor of Idaho, et al. v. Hecox et al. (No. 24-38), Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in part.
“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. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (‘sex’ is ‘an immutable characteristic’). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion rested on the text and history of Title IX, enacted in 1972, that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. The 1974 Javits Amendment directed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to issue regulations that include “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports.” The 1975 regulations explicitly authorize “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” and require “equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes.”
“The Court concludes that separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable given the inherent physical differences between the sexes,” Kavanaugh wrote. “In assessing the reasonableness of the regulations, the Court must recognize the distinctiveness of competitive sports—and the safety and competitive fairness issues that can arise when females are forced to compete against males. In recent years, 27 States and various sports-governing bodies have all drawn the same line.”
The Court reversed decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit that held Title IX permits schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex and that West Virginia permissibly maintained female sports for biological females. The same logic applied to Idaho’s law.
The Court rejected arguments that states must conduct individualized assessments for every biological male who identifies as female, noting that legislatures and schools are better positioned than courts to draw lines in this context.
The ruling does not require states to ban biological males from girls’ and women’s teams; it simply permits them to do so. It does not decide whether schools may voluntarily allow biological males who identify as female onto girls’ teams; a question the remains subject to ongoing litigation in other cases—Soule et al. v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. in the Second Circuit and the DOJ enforcement action against Maine Department of Education which is being litigated in a Maine U.S. District Court.
Tuesday SCOTUS’ decision also does not restrict biological females from competing on male or co-ed teams and does not alter the requirement for equal athletic opportunity.
The cases involved two biological males who identify as female. In West Virginia, B. P. J. (also referred to as Becky Pepper-Jackson in public reporting) socially transitioned in third grade, began puberty blockers, and later took cross-sex hormones. B. P. J. sought to compete on the girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams and later won a state championship in girls’ shot put while the litigation continued. In Idaho, Lindsay Hecox, a biological male who underwent male puberty before taking hormones, competed on a women’s club soccer team and tried out for Division I women’s track and cross-country teams.
Both states enacted laws defining eligibility for female teams by biological sex. West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act (2021) and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (2020) prohibit biological males from participating on female teams. The legislatures cited safety and competitive fairness, noting inherent physical differences between the sexes and that advantages from male puberty are not fully eliminated by puberty blockers or hormones.
The Court’s decision upholds laws already in place in 27 states and provides clear constitutional and statutory authority for other states to adopt or enforce similar biological-sex eligibility rules.
In Washington state, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) continues to allow student-athletes to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity, in accordance with state anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Attempts to amend WIAA rules to restrict girls’ sports to biological females failed to reach the required threshold and would have conflicted with current state law.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision clarifies that Washington possesses the authority under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause to enact or enforce biological-sex-based eligibility standards for female sports teams if its elected officials or voters choose to do so. The ruling removes federal constitutional or statutory barriers that lower courts had previously imposed in similar cases.
Let’s Go Washington, which is sponsoring Initiative IL26-638 for the November 2026 ballot, hailed the decision as empowering states to protect girls’ sports. The initiative would require a student’s primary care physician to certify biological sex on a routine sports physical, barring biological males from girls’ teams while permitting them to compete in categories aligned with their biological sex.
“This case is a victory for girls across the country, but specifically in Washington State. We know that girls deserve equal protection under the law and SCOTUS just affirmed that they know that too,” Hallie Herzberg, Let’s Go Washington spokesperson wrote in a statement. “This case gives states the authority to stand up for girls, something Chris Reykdal, Jamie Pedersen, Laurie Jinkins, and Bob Ferguson have been too cowardly to do. Voting yes on 638 will protect girls’ sports and confirm once and for all that girls deserve safe and fair access to their sports, spaces, and opportunities.”
President Donald J Trump described the ruling as a “BIG WIN.” In a Truth Social post, he wrote: “The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS. Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!!”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a statement calling the decision a “tremendous victory” that affirms “the common sense right of states to prohibit men from competing in women’s sports, safeguard the integrity of female spaces, and ensure no woman faces discrimination on the basis of sex.”
She added that “for years, ideologues distorted Title IX to advance a radical transgender agenda, subjecting women to immeasurable harm. The Trump Administration has fought to restore Title IX’s protections for women and girls since Day One. Today’s ruling cements those reforms and builds on decades of work to secure equal educational opportunities for women and girls.”
Author: Mario Lotmore
