Supreme Court Upholds State Laws Restricting Trans Athletes

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports are constitutional.

The justices decided these anti-trans laws do not violate Title IX, a civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination. They also ruled that these laws do not go against the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

States that have banned trans athletes from female sports, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, “have concluded at this time that women and girls should be allowed to compete for those life-changing opportunities on an equal playing field, without fear of physical injury from biological males or being forced to compete against biological males.”

“We hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” he added.

The two cases at hand — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — asked the justices to determine whether two laws in Idaho and West Virginia prohibiting trans athletes from participating in female sports in public schools and in college violated the equal rights protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Ultimately, the justices decided the laws do not violate the Constitution, effectively upholding laws in 27 states that have similar statutes in place.

The justices delivered one joint opinion for both cases. 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.

The liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed with the other six justices when it comes to the Title IX determination, but ultimately said in their dissent that the majority’s determination that the equal protection clause does not protect trans athletes “gets the answer wrong.”

“To provide equal opportunity for female athletes, schools do not merely maintain, for example, one soccer team, one basketball team, one ice hockey team, and one lacrosse team that are equally open to female and male athletes,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That approach would deny equal opportunity to female athletes because, as all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance.”

“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes,” Kavanaugh continued.

Both West Virginia’s law, known as the Save Women’s Sports Act, and Idaho’s law, known as the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, allow students to sue schools who allow trans athletes to join female sports teams.

Trans rights have become an increasingly political topic. Republicans have quickly seized on it as a top social issue in campaigns, following President Donald Trump’s lead during the 2024 presidential election.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas echoed some of the political discourse that conservatives have employed.

“Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are,” Thomas wrote. He said that “Sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic” and “it is binary.”

“To use language to obscure reality — to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’ — is to lie to the public,” Thomas added.

Tuesday’s decisions come a year after the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gender-affirming care for trans minors is unconstitutional.

“This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious, and evolving issues. These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which also concurred with part of the majority opinion.

“In opting otherwise, the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports. I share that sympathy. Playing sports can lead to benefits that are immeasurable, and many are understandably invested in ensuring that competition stays fair and safe,” Sotomayor continued.

But, she added, that the majority “inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions.”

These are two of several LGBTQ+ cases the Supreme Court heard this term.

In March, the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s law banning licensed health professionals from providing conversion therapy, a practice that has been denounced by major medical organizations. The justices sent the case back down to lower courts that originally upheld the law, arguing that justices needed to reconsider the case and take into consideration whether such a law violates a provider’s First Amendment rights.

The court, at the time, did not rule whether the law itself is constitutional, but it hinted that it likely will not be. Gorsuch wrote in the opinion that “any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault” on the First Amendment.

—
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with additional reporting.