Major Win for Girls’ Sports: Supreme Court Sides with West Virginia, Idaho
By Isaac C., Legal Intern
On June 30th, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion for the consolidated cases of West Virginia v. B. P. J. and Little v. Hecox, both dealing with the issue of boys and men playing in girls’ and women’s sports. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by state laws prohibiting males from participating in women’s sports. West Virginia v. B. P. J., 606 U. S. (2026). As Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, 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.”
This ruling is a substantial win for women’s sports across the country, many of which have been turned upside down by the participation of males identifying as female. To address this, 27 states—as well as the International Olympic Committee, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and the NCAA—have banned males from competing in women’s sports. These states include West Virginia and Idaho, whose statutes were challenged in the lawsuits addressed by the Court.
Both plaintiffs alleged that the statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and B. P. J. also alleged a violation of Title IX. The Equal Protection Clause provides that no State shall deny “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Notably, the clause was recently addressed in United States v. Skrmetti, in which the Court explained that the command “must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons.” 605 U. S. 495, 509 (2025). Based on this, the Court determined that the laws trigger intermediate scrutiny, under which the State must show that the law’s classification is “substantially related” to an “important” governmental objective.
The Supreme Court found that the States did, in fact, have such an important objective in protecting the safety and fairness of women’s sports across the country, because there are significant negative consequences when men are allowed to compete against women in sports. Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that sports are generally a zero-sum game: for every man who earns a spot on the team or wins a medal, a woman loses. This has proven unfair to many women across the country who have watched males shatter women’s sports records.
Title IX provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U. S. C. §1681(a). In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Title IX allows schools to separate men’s and women’s sports by biological sex, and that the term “sex” as used in the statute could not be interpreted to mean anything other than biological sex given the context of the legislation and its history. Consequently, B. P. J.’s claim under Title IX was also unpersuasive.
The plaintiffs specifically asked for an exception from these rules for men who have undergone “gender transition” and/or puberty-blocking treatments, claiming that these hormonal changes eliminate any advantage the individuals might have had from their sex. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing on two grounds: first, because there is as yet little to no scientific evidence establishing that men who have undergone hormone treatments hold no physical advantage over women (Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that this issue would be much better addressed by the legislature, which has the ability to analyze the full body of scientific evidence); and second, because it would be an administrative nightmare to task the courts with deciding exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, what would then prevent men who identify as men from claiming that they are no more gifted athletically than a woman and requesting to participate in women’s sports?
This decision is a step toward restoring safety and fairness in America’s women’s sports, although opposing viewpoints remain prevalent, as evidenced by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joining together in a sharp dissent. Justice Sotomayor, reading a summary of her dissent from the bench, wrote that “to the Court, the facts do not matter, even though the consequences are serious,” emphasizing that “[s]ports, of course, are often zero sum, but the law need not and should not be.”
Notably, this decision does not enforce any sort of nationwide ban on men in women’s sports; it simply permits states to write their own laws doing so. Virginia has a near-ban at the regulatory level via the Virginia High School League, but not at the statutory level.[1] Consequently, work remains to be done in those states, including Virginia, that have not yet adopted laws reserving women’s sports for actual women.
[1] Movement Advancement Project, Bans on Transgender Youth Participation in Sports, https://mapresearch.org/equality-map/bans-on-transgender-youth-participation-in-sports/ (last visited July 2, 2026).