On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and the companion case Little v. Hecox, holding that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause permit states to restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to athletes who are identified as biologically female at birth.
Background
In the past six years, 27 states have enacted laws restricting transgender athletes from participating on female sports teams. This case arose from challenges to two such laws. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act, prohibiting transgender athletes from participating on female sports teams. B.P.J., a transgender teenage girl who sought to participate on girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams in West Virginia, brought claims under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, in 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act with comparable provisions. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who sought to compete on collegiate women’s teams at Boise State University, raised an Equal Protection challenge in Idaho.
Holding
The Court addressed whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states may permit schools to determine eligibility for female sports based on biological sex at birth. The Court held that Title IX permits state laws allowing schools to maintain separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and the majority opinion also held that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by limiting participation on female sports teams to those who are biologically assigned female at birth.
Title IX Analysis
In the B.P.J. case, the plaintiff did not contest that the term “sex” in Title IX and the Title IX regulations means anything other than “biological sex.” Although this issue was not disputed, the majority noted it agreed that the ordinary meaning of “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex. Indeed, the Court observed that Title IX regulations expressly permit schools to maintain “separate teams for members of each sex,” which was allowed “precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes—namely, the inherent physical differences between biological women and biological men.”
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that schools must make an exception for transgender females who had taken puberty blockers or hormones, holding that it was reasonable to draw the line at a ban of all individuals who were identified as biological males at birth. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that Title VII and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) require a different interpretation. While Bostock held that discrimination based on transgender status constitutes discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII’s employment provisions, the Court distinguished that context from athletics. As the majority explained: “In the workplace, Title VII generally requires that men and women be treated without regard to their sex. In the sports context, by contrast, Title IX authorizes separate men’s and women’s sports teams.” Accordingly, the Court determined that Title IX permits states to limit women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females.
Equal Protection Clause Analysis
Regarding the Equal Protection claim, the majority opinion applied intermediate scrutiny and concluded that the states’ interests in safety and competitive fairness are “important” government objectives, and that limiting women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females is “substantially related” to those interests. The majority emphasized that “[s]tates are not required to conduct an individual-by-individual comparison of the physical and athletic capabilities of all biological males in order to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.”
The Court then rejected the plaintiffs’ equal protection argument that the classification should be invalidated as applied to transgender athletes who have taken puberty blockers or hormones. The Court emphasized that practical difficulties would arise if courts were required to make individualized assessments of athletes, noting that “[i]ndividuals come in all shapes and sizes, with different height, weight, muscle mass, heart capacity, lung capacity, strength, speed, endurance, jumping ability, and so on.” The majority concluded that “[t]he legislatures and the schools are better equipped—and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate entities—to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations and draw appropriate lines.”
Conclusion
The decision establishes that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause permit states to limit girls’ and women’s sports teams to those who are assigned female at birth. However, the Court explicitly noted that the decision does not address “the distinct question of whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may allow biological males who identify as female to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams.” That issue remains subject to litigation in federal courts, and we will keep you apprised of any developments in those cases moving forward.