On June 30, 2026, in a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.
The two cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, respectively challenge a West Virginia and an Idaho state law banning transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams at public schools. West Virginia, v. B.P.J., the case most frequently addressed in the majority opinion, centers around a 15-year-old high school student who has identified as female since third grade and has taken medicine to prevent the onset of male puberty. This suit was filed by B.P.J.’s mother after B.P.J. was not allowed to participate on her middle school girls’ track and cross-country teams.
The court addressed whether states may maintain these bans under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Regarding Title IX challenge, the majority (joined in part by the three dissenting justices) emphasized that the purpose of this legislation was to provide “equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes” and the term “sex” could not be reasonably interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex based on the text and history of Title IX. Rejecting B.P.J.’s “reasonableness” challenge, Kavanaugh wrote that “separate sports teams for biological men and biological women are reasonable” and asserted that Title IX regulations allowed the creation of separate teams due to the biological differences between the sexes.
The majority relied on similar points when addressing the Equal Protection Clause claim. As the separation of men and women’s sports teams has to do with sex, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny, which requires the state to show that a classification based on sex is “substantially related” to an important government purpose. The majority agreed with the states’ arguments that the interests in safety and competitive fairness were important interests and limiting women’s and girls’ sports to biological females was substantially related to serving those interests. The majority furthered that states are not required to complete individualized analyses for “every biological male who might want to play on a women’s or girls’ team” to determine if that athlete does in fact have an advantage.
Schools should be aware that the Court did not ban transgender women and girls from participating on women and girls’ sports team. Rather, the holding affirms that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prohibit separating athlete participation based on biological sex. As such, state laws that require separation based on biological sex are allowed to stand. Similarly, states, like California, that allow or mandate students to participate on a sports team that aligns with their gender identity or states that do not address the issue are not required to make any changes to their existing policies.
If your school district has questions regarding the decision or its impact, please contact one of the listed authors or the F3 attorney with whom you normally consult.
This Viewpoint was co-written by Peter Fagen, Partner, David Mishook, Partner, and Megan Ford, Summer Associate.
The ruling addresses a long controversial divide on how schools approach transgender student inclusion in athletics.
