The Supreme Court Upholds State Authority to Preserve Sex-Based Athletic Teams in West Virginia v. B.P.J.

On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential Title IX and Equal Protection decisions in recent years, holding in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and the consolidated case Little v. Hecox that states may limit participation on girls’ and women’s sports teams based on biological sex. The Court ruled that such laws do not violate either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 6-3 decision resolves a growing national legal debate surrounding transgender athletes’ participation in school sports and provides significant guidance for schools, universities, athletic associations, and state legislatures across the country.

The dispute arose after West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act in 2021. The law requires participation in school athletic teams to be determined according to an individual’s biological sex and restricts girls’ and women’s teams to biological females. Similar legislation was enacted in Idaho through its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.

The plaintiff in the West Virginia case, known as B.P.J., is a transgender girl who challenged the law after being prevented from competing on girls’ athletic teams. She argued that the statute violated both Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

After years of litigation, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the West Virginia law was unconstitutional as applied to B.P.J., finding that the state had not sufficiently justified excluding her from girls’ sports. West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case alongside Idaho’s similar challenge.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, reversed the lower courts and upheld both state laws.

The court unanimously concluded that maintaining separate athletic teams for boys and girls does not violate Title IX. The majority emphasized that Title IX’s implementing regulations have long expressly permitted schools to operate separate athletic teams for members of each sex. According to the Court, those regulations were adopted specifically because of recognized biological differences between males and females in athletic competition.

Justice Kavanaugh further reasoned that the term “sex” as used in Title IX and its accompanying regulations refers to biological sex, not gender identity, particularly in the context of athletics. Therefore, schools may establish eligibility rules based on biological sex without violating the statute.

The Court also concluded that the challenged laws satisfy constitutional scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court found that states have important government interests in promoting (1) athletic fairness, (2) competitive opportunities for female athletes, and (3) safety in athletic competition.

The majority held that restricting girls’ and women’s teams to biological females is substantially related to achieving those objectives. Notably, the Court rejected the argument that judges must conduct individualized assessments of every transgender athlete’s physical characteristics or medical history before determining eligibility. Instead, the Court held that states may draw categorical lines based on biological sex in the athletic context.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Jackson, agreed that the plaintiff’s Title IX claims failed but disagreed with the majority’s constitutional analysis. She argued that unresolved factual questions remained regarding whether transgender athletes who never experienced male puberty possess meaningful competitive advantages over biological females. In her view, those issues warranted additional fact-finding before a final constitutional ruling.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson separately criticized the majority’s interpretation of Title IX, asserting that the statute may be broader than the Court’s reading and that discrimination against transgender individuals can, in some circumstances, constitute discrimination “on the basis of sex.”

Over the last several years, more than two dozen states have enacted laws restricting participation in girls’ and women’s sports based on biological sex. The Supreme Court’s decision provides substantial constitutional support for those laws and offers states a clearer framework for regulating athletic participation.

While the decision settles a major question regarding school athletics, it also leaves open broader questions concerning the legal treatment of gender identity in other areas of law, issues that will likely continue to generate significant litigation in the years ahead.