Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S.
States can bar transgender athletes from playing on school teams that match their gender identity, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 6-3 decision from the court’s conservative majority leaves intact restrictions in 29 states, most of which explicitly prevent transgender women and girls from playing on women’s and girls school sports teams.
The decision was hailed by conservatives who reject the idea that gender identity is a meaningful legal category and by some groups representing female athletes, who say such bans are necessary to ensure fairness and safety in women’s sports. It marks another legal setback for transgender youth as the Trump administration and Republican-led state legislatures have advanced policies limiting transgender rights.
The decision does not require states to bar transgender athletes from playing on teams that match their gender identity, permitting, at least for now, policies in more than 20 states that the Trump administration has targeted.
But writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the plain meaning of “sex” in the Title IX statute that bars sex discrimination in education, particularly in the amendment dealing with sports participation, “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.”
Kavanaugh wrote that the science on whether transgender women athletes who have been through hormone therapy retain physical advantages over other women remains unsettled. That is sufficient reason, he said, to defer to states and athletic associations. And he wrote that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on women’s teams could leave other competitors at a “serious disadvantage.”
“That is because sports are generally zero sum,” he wrote. “Allowing a biological male athlete to compete on a girls’ team necessarily displaces or disadvantages a female athlete—replacing her on the roster, knocking her out of the starting lineup, reducing her playing time, depriving her of a medal, and the like. That hard reality of sports cannot be ignored or swept under the rug.”
The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed that bans on transgender women and girls participating in female sports may not violate Title IX. But she said one of the cases should have been sent back to the lower courts for further fact-finding about whether that particular athlete — a West Virginia high school track athlete who never went through male puberty — could compete fairly with other girls.
And she said the majority opinion was cavalier in its treatment of the legal rights of transgender people under the constitution’s equal protection clause. Sotomayor also expressed concern about the opportunities that could be denied to them under the ruling.
Sports, Sotomayor wrote, “can help build resilience, tenacity, leadership, and discipline. It can lead to life-long friendships, community, and a sense of belonging. It can bring joy and the thrill of victory, along with all the lessons one learns from experiencing defeat. The benefits are immense.”
“Sports, of course, are often zero sum,” she continued, “but the law need not and should not be.”
The ruling stems from two lawsuits challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia.
One case, Little v. Hecox, involved Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student who competed in the women’s track and field club team after she didn’t qualify for the Division I team. The other, West Virginia v. B.P.J, involved Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender high school track athlete who had undergone hormone therapy from a young age.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases in January.
The cases centered on whether state laws limiting transgender athletes’ participation in sports violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.
Idaho became the first state to enact such a law in 2020.
Today, 29 states have laws or policies restricting transgender athletes’ participation, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ issues. Most states with restrictions bar transgender women and girls from participating on girls sports teams, while some also prohibit transgender boys from boys teams.
Other state laws are silent on the issue or require an inclusive approach. Some high school sports associations set standards for when transgender athletes can compete in the female category.
Cases raise issues of fairness, competition, community
Soju Hokari, a transgender athlete who played ultimate frisbee in high school and college, said she wasn’t surprised at the outcome, but said she feels sad and worried for Pepper-Jackson and other trans girls who will have to stop playing on their school teams.
“I cannot imagine, as a high school student, being pulled away from that community,” said Hokari, who graduated from Emory College just as Georgia’s ban was taking effect. “Sports is so central to a lot of people’s childhoods. If I hadn’t had my sports, I would have been a very different person.”
But Nancy Hogshead, an Olympic swimmer and attorney who has advocated for women’s opportunities in sports, called the decision “a step in the right direction” that doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t require states to bar transgender athletes from women’s teams.
Given that everything from weight categories to swimsuits to the air pressure in a football is so heavily policed in sports to ensure fairness, Hogshead said it doesn’t make sense to overlook any potential advantage afforded by sex.
“The female categories exist to exclude males and male athletic advantages,” said Hogshead, who leads the advocacy group Champion Women. “It exists to give girls and women a place to compete and win.”
Ruling upholds status quo, sets up future battles
The decision marks the third setback in two years for transgender rights at the Supreme Court.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court in 2025 upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. In Mirabelli v. Bonta earlier this year, the Supreme Court sided with parents challenging a California law that protected the privacy of students who were transitioning.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has issued executive orders recognizing only two sexes and defining sex based on biology at birth, targeting policies involving gender-affirming care, gender markers on passports, and transgender athletes’ sports participation. It has used its interpretation of Title IX to target states and school districts with more inclusive rules.
Legal experts said Tuesday’s decision was narrow in the sense that the justices tailored their arguments to sports and left many other issues related to transgender rights for future cases.
Deborah Brake, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who has written extensively about Title IX, said while this Supreme Court has not been friendly to transgender rights, nothing about the decision “forecloses challenges to transgender discrimination in other areas.”
Nonetheless, Shawn Meerkamper, managing attorney at the Transgender Law Center, said the decision endorsed sports policies in more than two dozen states that they see as discriminatory and simplistic. The court could have, for example, overturned broad bans and required states to adopt policies that consider the characteristics of individual athletes.
Across the spectrum, advocates predicted the political fight would only intensify in states that still have inclusive policies.
“It is an absolute win, and we still have more work to do at the state level,” said Beth Parlato, senior legal adviser at the conservative Independent Women’s Law Center.
This story has been updated throughout with additional reaction and commentary about the decision.
Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.
