(The Lion) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex, allowing states to ban biological men from women’s sports in a monumental win for those defending girls’ and women’s sports.
The ruling addressed B.P.J. v. West Virginia and Little v. Hecox, two cases related to transgender athletes participating in sports. The ruling considered what is protected under Title IX and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Concerning B.P.J., the Supreme Court holds that Title IX allows schools to offer separate men’s and women’s teams and that the state can keep sports exclusive to each sex. This ruling upholds Title IX and ensures that women’s teams are safe spaces for women only. The Supreme Court overturned a Fourth Circuit court ruling against the West Virginia “Save Women’s Sports Act.”
SCOTUS reached a similar decision in the Hecox case, overturning a Ninth Circuit Court decision and determining that the Idaho “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” is constitutional and allowed under the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The Court holds that West Virginia and Idaho’s state laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females.
The final count of the decision is complicated by the fact that the two cases were combined in one decision with concurring and dissenting opinions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett joining. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurring opinion focusing on the difference between Title VII and Title IX. Since all justices concurred in part, the decision is 9-0 that the laws in Idaho and West Virginia don’t violate federal civil rights laws and 6-3 that the laws do not violate the 14th Amendment.
B.P.J. v. West Virginia and Title IX protections
This case concerns a biological male, Becky Pepper-Jackson, who began puberty blockers in third grade. Now a 15-year-old high school student, Pepper-Jackson was barred from participating in high school cross-country and track and field due to his male biology. Pepper-Jackson sued the state for barring his participation in women’s sports due to the passage of the “Save Women’s Sports Act.”
Kavanaugh noted in his 29-page opinion that in the past six years, 27 states have enacted laws barring biological men identifying as women from women’s sports. The NCAA banned men from women’s teams in 2025 by officially changing their rulebook. Citing the Javits Amendment to Title IX in 1975, which defines Title IX as protecting women-only athletics, Kavanaugh writes in his opinion that states can ban biological males from women’s teams due to the biological differences.
“The question is whether Title IX permits schools to maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. The answer is yes,” Kavanaugh writes in his opinion regarding the B.P.J. case. “In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes—namely, the inherent physical differences between biological women and biological men.”
Kavanaugh, who has been a long-time volunteer high school women’s basketball coach, continued by saying that Title IX and the Javits Amendment “do not say (or even hint) that schools must allow certain biological males to participate in women’s and girls’ sports.”
Little v. Hecox and the Equal Protection Clause
Lindsay Hecox, a biological male identifying as a female, sued the governor of Idaho, Brad Little over the institution of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. Hecox is a college student who wanted to try out for the Boise State University cross-country and track teams. Hecox did not make the teams but then competed in club women’s soccer at BSU. Since the passage of the act, Hecox was no longer allowed to participate in women’s sports.
Kavanaugh’s opinion reiterated the same points as with the B.P.J. case, saying that barring men from women’s sports is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause allows schools to maintain separate teams for female and male athletes,” Kavanaugh writes. “Schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ teams based on biological sex.”
Justice Sotomayor dissented in this part of the decision, saying that although fair sports is a benefit for biological females, this decision does not treat all people fairly.
“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent.”
Similar to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, this ruling gives the power of banning men from women’s sports to the states.
