BPJ and Hecox: What The Supreme Court’s Decision on Transgender Athletes Means for Trans People, Families, and Educators

The Court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia that categorically ban transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ scholastic sports teams. The Court determined that it did not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause to exclude transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ sports teams.

Since 2020, 27 states have enacted similar laws, and many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student-athletes at risk and embolden intrusive challenges to student athletes’ sex. The Court’s ruling nonetheless allows states to continue these exclusionary policies.

In its ruling upholding the laws, the Supreme Court found the states are allowed — but not required — to force transgender student-athletes to compete on teams consistent with their sex assigned at birth and bar them from teams inconsistent with their sex assigned at birth. That means transgender student-athletes in states like West Virginia, Idaho, or the 25 other states with state-level bans remain barred from playing on teams consistent with their gender identity. In the future, other states may try to enact similar bans through the state legislature or by ballot initiative.

The Court did not mandate discrimination against transgender athletes. This means that state laws or school policies permitting transgender student athletes to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity remain valid. Under the Court’s reasoning, states like Idaho and West Virginia can ban transgender athletes, but states like California and New York can also still protect the rights of transgender athletes. In short, the Court’s ruling does not require states or school officials to ban transgender students from athletics.

The Court’s ruling specifically notes it only applies to the ability of transgender students to play on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity. The decision does not resolve the separate question of whether state laws or school policies can ban transgender students from restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. The Court made very clear that the decision was based on the particular legal and practical realities of athletics.

Given that the Court did not require discrimination against transgender students, including transgender student-athletes, the decision reinforces that educators, administrators, athletic associations, and other school officials can still take action to protect transgender young people. Nobody is required to discriminate and given all that we know about the benefits – to young people and to society — of athletics and of inclusion, educators should act to protect all vulnerable young people from discrimination.

The Court made a point of distinguishing between sports and other educational contexts. The ruling does not resolve separate legal questions outside of the sports context.

The ruling is about the permissibility of banning transgender athletes. The Idaho law applies to collegiate athletics and to K-12 athletics. The West Virginia law applies to 6-12 athletics.

By its own terms, the ruling is confined to the context of school sports. That said, court decisions are often invoked in other contexts and it is possible that government officials and others will try to use the decision to legitimize discrimination against transgender people.

It means that if a ballot measure that bans transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ sports is voted into law then it will be deemed lawful under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Constitution under the Court’s ruling.