The Supreme Court To Decide On Banning Transgender Athletes In Women’s Sports

On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States spent the day on two cases that could shape how girls’ and women’s sports are regulated nationwide. The disputes come from Idaho and West Virginia, where Republican-led legislatures passed laws barring transgender athletes who identify as girls from competing on female sports teams.

The court is weighing challenges to laws in Idaho and West Virginia, both passed by Republican-led legislatures and both aimed at restricting participation in female sports to biological women.

The Cases Before the Justices

One case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., is about a 15-year-old male student who identifies as a girl and was barred from competing on his school’s girls’ track team under a 2021 state law. A federal court blocked enforcement of the law against him. West Virginia appealed, arguing that separating sports by biological sex is both lawful and necessary to protect fairness for female athletes.

The second case, Little v. Hecox, challenges Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, passed in 2020. The law categorically bars males from competing on women’s sports teams, including transgender athletes who identify as girls or women. The plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who sought to compete in women’s track and cross-country, has since asked that the case be dismissed, saying he no longer competes and does not want continued attention or harassment.  

Lower courts blocked both laws, prompting the states to appeal. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether those rulings were correct or whether the bans can stand.

Allowing men to compete in women’s sports can carry risks of physical harm. One example is that of Payton McNabb, a former high school volleyball player who suffered a traumatic brain injury and partial paralysis after being struck by a ball spiked by a transgender opponent. McNabb has since said the injury ended her hopes of playing college volleyball and left her with lasting neurological and mobility issues.  

What Did the Justices Focus On?

During Tuesday’s arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of striking down the state laws outright. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether allowing transgender athletes to compete creates what he described as a special exception to sex-based rules. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about the impact of transgender-inclusive policies on girls’ and women’s teams and how the issue may be harmful to female athletes.

The court’s three liberal justices asked how the laws draw distinctions between sex and transgender status. They did not argue that the bans must always be struck down, instead raising the possibility that individual athletes could still challenge the laws by showing they do not have an unfair advantage. They did not explain what evidence would be sufficient to meet that bar.

The court set aside an hour for each case, though the arguments stretched well beyond that, running for more than three hours in total.

The legal questions differ between the two cases. In the Idaho challenge, the dispute centers on the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The West Virginia case raises both equal protection claims and questions under Title IX, the federal law that bars sex discrimination in education. The states argue that Title IX permits, and even requires, separating sports by biological sex to ensure equal opportunities for women and girls. However, lawyers for the trans athletes argue that excluding transgender students who identify as girls from girls’ teams is itself a form of sex discrimination.

The Supreme Court has not previously ruled directly on transgender participation in sports. Last year, it upheld a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender adolescents, a decision that signaled a willingness to allow states more authority in this area. Many observers see Tuesday’s arguments as another test of how far that authority extends.

The Trump Administration 

In February, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to withdraw funding from schools that permit transgender athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s teams. West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey stated it’s a matter of “protecting women in both academia and on the athletic field.” He has predicted a sweeping victory for the states.

What’s Next? 

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by early summer. The ruling could be narrow, per Fox News, applying only to the two students who brought the challenges, or broad enough to affect laws in all 27 states that currently restrict transgender youth participation in school sports.

Women’s sports exist because sex matters in athletics, in nearly everything. We differ in strength, speed, and injury risk because our biologies are different; pretending otherwise does not make competition fair. Title IX was passed to give girls and women real opportunities and to provide roster spots, scholarships, championships, and a level field where effort is taken into account. When biological males are allowed into female categories, that promise weakens, and the burden falls on young women who followed the rules and trained for years under the assumption that the category would remain intact. It also erases the meaning of what it means to be a woman.  

For now, the justices have heard the arguments and taken the question under advisement. We hope they rule in favor of the girls and young women Title IX was written to protect.

Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.