US Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Transgender Women in Female Sports

New Delhi, India Jul 1, 2026 ALN: The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can ban transgender women from competing in female school and college sports.

The court considered cases from students in two different states who had challenged bans on participation. The two states, Idaho and West Virginia, enacted laws that required public school and college sports teams to compete in accordance with their sex recorded at birth.

One of the two challenges argued that the ban violates equal rights protections in the US Constitution, while the other claimed it contradicts civil rights laws.

Since Idaho enacted its ban in 2020, more than two dozen states have followed suit.

Under these state bans, a transgender woman—defined as 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 determined that the state bans do not violate Title IX, a civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools.

However, the judges were divided along ideological lines regarding whether the bans contravene the Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The six conservative justices concluded that the bans do not violate the Constitution, while the three liberal justices disagreed.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, stated, "The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America." In her partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority opinion for applying "a diminished view of equal protection" to sports.

The challenge initiated in Idaho came from Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and long-distance runner, who filed it shortly after the law was enacted. Initially, she was granted an injunction by both a district court and an appeals court.

State lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the law, asserted 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." However, a panel of three judges found that the Idaho law violated constitutional rights, stating that the state failed to provide evidence that its ban protects "sex equality and opportunity for women athletes."

West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey hailed the ruling as a victory for common sense, asserting it would provide all states with "the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come."

Conversely, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an organization advocating for the LGBT community, condemned the decision. HRC President Kelley Robinson remarked, "This ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are."

Former President Donald Trump celebrated the ruling, calling it a "BIG WIN" in a social media post. He has made the issue of transgender athletes in women's sports a focal point of his 2024 election campaign, having signed an executive order last year aimed at banning transgender women from competing on female sports teams in schools and colleges.

Following Trump's executive order, the NCAA, the governing body for US college sports, also banned transgender women from competing in women's sports.

Supporters of the bans argue that transgender women possess a biological advantage over athletes who were recorded female at birth. In March, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced it would limit the women's category of Olympic sports to biological females, citing a review of scientific evidence that concluded there is a "clear consensus" that "male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power, and resistance."

Opponents of the bans argue that they unfairly discriminate against transgender students and challenge the notion of a scientific consensus regarding inherent advantages held by transgender women and girls.

As the debate continues, the implications of this ruling will likely resonate across the landscape of sports and civil rights in the United States.