May, Not Must: The Supreme Court’s Transgender Athletics Ruling and What It Changes for Sports Organizations
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held that a state may limit girls’ and women’s sports teams to biological females without running afoul of Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. The vote was 6 to 3 in two cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, which were decided together in a single opinion by Justice Kavanaugh. The Court reversed the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and reinstated Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws. Two practical points get lost in the headlines:
- First, the Title IX holding was unanimous. All nine Justices agreed that laws limiting girls’ and women’s sports teams to biological females do not violate Title IX. The Court split 6 to 3 only on the Equal Protection question. So, the part of the decision that reaches federally funded programs, the Title IX part, it was unanimous.
- Second, the Court said states may limit girls’ and women’s sports teams to biological females. It did not state they must do so. Twenty-five states already restrict participation in sports teams to birth sex. Roughly twenty-one states, including California and New York, allow transgender girls to compete on girls’ and women’s sports team. This decision means both types of laws are valid.
What this means
Sports organizations that are not public schools and do not receive federal education funds are not impacted by this decision. The eligibility rules for these organizations continue to apply.
For sports organizations that are public schools or that receive federal funding, here is what the decision means: Your organization needs to understand and follow the laws of state(s) where you operate, host events, etc. Under the Court’s ruling, states can pass laws that either allow or prohibit transgender female athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
If your organization is required to follow eligibility standards from a governing body, this decision does not change that requirement. It also does not resolve the tension that arises when a governing body mandate and a state law conflict or have tension. A sports organization that crosses state borders may have to administer conflicting mandates simultaneously.
What to watch
- New state legislation – Expect more states to act now that the United States Supreme Court has spoken on this issue.
- Federal funding conditions – The 2025 executive order on school sports, and any funding strings tied to it, remain live for anyone who takes federal dollars.
- Governing body alignment – The NCAA, the USOPC, and international federations are likely to keep tightening eligibility. Plan for the gap between those rules and the law of a given state.
- The open question below high school – The Court did not address young co-ed contexts, where boys and girls often play together. But that fight is almost certainly coming.
- Employment is unchanged – Bostock still protects transgender coaches and staff under Title VII. So, keep athlete eligibility decisions separate from personnel decisions.
How we can help
We will advise clients on eligibility policy, state-by-state compliance, and grievance procedures in light of the ruling. If you want us to pressure-test your current policy against the state or states where you operate, please contact the Miller Johnson Sports Law Group.