US Supreme Court upholds bans on transgender women in female school and college sports
✓Under those state bans, a transgender woman - a biological male who identifies as a woman - is not permitted to compete in female sports at schools and colleges.
All nine justices on the court decided the state bans do not violate a civil rights law called Title IX which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools.
But the judges were split along ideological lines on whether the bans contravene the Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The six conservative justices said it did not violate the constitution but the three liberal justices disagreed.
"The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling.
In her partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority opinion had applied "a diminished view of equal protection" to sports.
The challenge launched in Idaho came from a transgender woman, Lindsay Hecox, a long distance runner, who lodged it shortly after the law was enacted. She was later granted an injunction by both a district court and an appeals court.
State lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the law, said at the time of its passing that it would ensure "boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it's not fair".
But in the appeals ruling, a panel of three judges found that the Idaho law violated constitutional rights. They said the state had failed to provide evidence that its ban protects "sex equality and opportunity for women athletes".
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said the ruling was a victory for common sense and would give all states "the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come".
But the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which advocates for the LGBT community, criticised the decision.
"This ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are," said HRC President Kelley Robinson.
President Donald Trump, who celebrated the ruling and called it a "BIG WIN" in a social media post, made the issue of transgender athletes in women's sports a regular focus of his 2024 election campaign. Last year, he signed an executive order that aimed to ban transgender women from competing on female sports teams in schools and colleges.
Following that decision, the NCAA, the governing body for US college sports, banned transgender women from competing in women's sports.
Supporters of the bans argued that transgender women had a biological advantage over athletes who were recorded female at birth.
When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced in March it was going to limit the women's category of Olympic sports to biological females, it said its working group reviewed the latest scientific evidence over the previous 18 months and had concluded there was a "clear consensus", external that "male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and resistance" .
Those who opposed the bans argue that they unfairly discriminated against transgender students and dispute whether there is a scientific consensus that transgender women and girls have an inherent advantage.
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗ · BBC ↗ · Axios ↗
The US Supreme Court has upheld state-level bans preventing transgender women from competing in female school and college sports. The decision hinged on two legal questions. On Title IX—the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in education—all nine justices agreed the bans do not violate it. On the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, the court split along ideological lines: six conservative justices found no violation, while three liberal justices dissented. The case centred on Idaho's 2022 law, challenged by long-distance runner Lindsay Hecox. Lower courts had previously blocked the law, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions. The ruling gives states legal cover to enforce such bans. Athletic performance differences between transgender and cisgender women remain scientifically debated: some research indicates biological advantages in strength-dependent sports, while critics contest whether evidence supports an absolute consensus. The NCAA and International Olympic Committee have separately adopted comparable eligibility restrictions.
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗ · BBC ↗ · Axios ↗
Under those state bans, a transgender woman - a biological male who identifies as a woman - is not permitted to compete in female sports at schools and colleges.
All nine justices on the court decided the state bans do not violate a civil rights law called Title IX which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools.
But the judges were split along ideological lines on whether the bans contravene the Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The six conservative justices said it did not violate the constitution but the three liberal justices disagreed.
"The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling.
In her partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority opinion had applied "a diminished view of equal protection" to sports.
The challenge launched in Idaho came from a transgender woman, Lindsay Hecox, a long distance runner, who lodged it shortly after the law was enacted. She was later granted an injunction by both a district court and an appeals court.
State lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the law, said at the time of its passing that it would ensure "boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it's not fair".
But in the appeals ruling, a panel of three judges found that the Idaho law violated constitutional rights. They said the state had failed to provide evidence that its ban protects "sex equality and opportunity for women athletes".
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said the ruling was a victory for common sense and would give all states "the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come".
But the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which advocates for the LGBT community, criticised the decision.
"This ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are," said HRC President Kelley Robinson.
President Donald Trump, who celebrated the ruling and called it a "BIG WIN" in a social media post, made the issue of transgender athletes in women's sports a regular focus of his 2024 election campaign. Last year, he signed an executive order that aimed to ban transgender women from competing on female sports teams in schools and colleges.
Following that decision, the NCAA, the governing body for US college sports, banned transgender women from competing in women's sports.
Supporters of the bans argued that transgender women had a biological advantage over athletes who were recorded female at birth.
When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced in March it was going to limit the women's category of Olympic sports to biological females, it said its working group reviewed the latest scientific evidence over the previous 18 months and had concluded there was a "clear consensus", external that "male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and resistance" .
Those who opposed the bans argue that they unfairly discriminated against transgender students and dispute whether there is a scientific consensus that transgender women and girls have an inherent advantage.
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗ · BBC ↗ · Axios ↗
The US Supreme Court upheld state bans on transgender women competing in female school and college sports All nine justices decided the bans do not violate Title IX, the civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools Six conservative justices found no constitutional violation; three liberal justices disagreed on whether the bans violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee Idaho's law was challenged by transgender runner Lindsay Hecox; lower courts had previously granted injunctions blocking it The ruling ensures 'boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it's not fair' The lower appeals court found Idaho failed to provide evidence that its ban protects 'sex equality and opportunity for women athletes' West Virginia's Attorney General called the ruling a 'victory for common sense' that gives states 'clarity and confidence' for fairness in female sports The Human Rights Campaign criticised the decision, saying transgender athletes are 'forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are' Supporters argue transgender women have biological advantages in strength, power and resistance over athletes recorded female at birth Opponents argue the bans discriminate unfairly and dispute scientific consensus on inherent performance advantages The International Olympic Committee announced in March it would limit women's Olympic categories to biological females, citing review of scientific evidence showing male physiology provides performance advantages in strength and power sports The NCAA banned transgender women from competing in women's sports following the Supreme Court ruling
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗ · BBC ↗ · Axios ↗
- The US Supreme Court upheld state bans prohibiting transgender women from competing in female school and college sports
- All nine justices agreed the bans do not violate Title IX civil rights law; six conservative justices found no constitutional violation while three liberal justices disagreed
- The ruling came after Idaho's 2022 law was challenged by transgender runner Lindsay Hecox, whose initial court challenges had blocked the ban before the Supreme Court's decision
- Scientific evidence on transgender athletic performance is contested: some studies show biological advantages in strength and power, while opponents dispute this consensus
- The NCAA and International Olympic Committee have implemented similar restrictions on transgender women in sports