The Supreme Court has agreed to review whether laws that bar transgender women and girls from competing in women’s and girls’ sports violate the Constitution or federal law. Amid a growing wave of restrictions targeting transgender athletes, this case gives the Court its first opportunity to weigh in on the controversial and politically-charged issue.    

What is the current status of legislation targeting transgender athletes?

• A total of 27 states have enacted a ban like this. In 2020, Idaho became the first state in the country to do so. It prohibits transgender women and girls from competing in women’s and girls’ sports from kindergarten through college. West Virginia enacted a similar law in 2021. The Idaho legislature justified the law by citing “inherent differences between men and women,” including men’s “denser, stronger bones…larger hearts, greater lung volume per body mass…[and] higher natural levels of testosterone,” all of which “result in different athletic capabilities.”
• Participation of transgender women in women’s sports has become a contentious issue, highlighted by high-profile cases such as Lia Thomas, a swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania. But the number of transgender women and girls participating in sports remains very low. At a congressional hearing in 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker testified that there are fewer than ten transgender college athletes among the more than 500,000 athletes. 
• President Trump issued an executive order in February entitled, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which directs the Department of Education to withhold federal funding from schools that permit transgender girls and women to compete on female athletic teams.
• Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued U.S. Mas­ters Swim­ming, a national competitive swimming program for adults, for permitting “biological men who identify as girls to compete against female athletes.”
• Polling shows that a majority of Americans support laws and policies requiring transgender athletes to compete only on sports teams that correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth. 

What is this SCOTUS case about?

• Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who sought to try out for the Boise State University women’s track and cross country teams, filed a lawsuit arguing that the Idaho ban violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 
• The mother of a 14-year-old transgender girl in West Virginia also filed a challenge to that state’s law.

What happened in the lower courts?

• A federal district court determined Hecox was likely to prevail in the lawsuit—on her Equal Protection claim—and issued an order preventing the state from enforcing the ban against her. Judge David Nye of the District of Idaho wrote, “[T]he Act on its face discriminates between cisgender athletes, who may compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity, and transgender women athletes, who may not compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity. Hence, while the physiological differences the Defendants suggest support the categorical bar on transgender women’s participation in women’s sports may justify the Act, they do not overcome the inescapable conclusion that the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status.”
• Idaho appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit also sided with Hecox and upheld the district court’s decision. 
• Idaho then petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene.

Why did the Supreme Court agree to review this case?

• Four justices must vote in favor of granting review of a case for it to be added to the docket. Here, the Court agreed to hear both the Idaho case and the parallel West Virginia case—the cases will likely be consolidated and considered at the same time. As is customary, the justices did not explain their decision to grant review.
• In its petition, Idaho argued that the law “ensures that women and girls are not forced to compete against men and boys who benefit from the ‘enduring’ ‘physical differences between men and women.’” The state asked the Court to step in “to decide whether the Constitution prohibits the people’s elected representatives in half the states from relying on sex-based distinctions to save women’s sports.”
• In her brief, Hecox argued Idaho is trying to “create a false sense of national emergency when nothing of the sort is presented by this case.” She asked the justices to stay out of this dispute because other cases—ones not about transgender athletes participating in sports—“provide better vehicles for resolving” disputes related to transgender rights. For instance, she pointed to ongoing litigation over whether transgender individuals may use restrooms that align with their gender identity. According to Hecox, cases like that are better suited to address issues like “whether sex is a subjective term.”

What is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

• Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
• To succeed with a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, the challenger must show that a state actor treated them differently from others without sufficient justification under the applicable level of scrutiny, resulting in harm.
• Hecox argues that Idaho’s law banning her, as a transgender woman, from competing on the women’s college sports team violates her Equal Protection rights because it singles her out for different treatment based on her transgender status without adequate justification.

What is Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?

• Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program that receives federal financial assistance.
• According to the U.S. Department of Education, “Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include but are not limited to: sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school’s science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation.” 

How has the Supreme Court ruled in recent transgender rights cases?

• There aren’t many Supreme Court cases that have addressed transgender rights issues.
• Bostock v. Clayton County (2020): The Court held that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” 
• Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm (2021): The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a dispute over whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause require schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity. The denial of certiorari left in place the lower court’s ruling in favor of the transgender student. 
• United States v. Skrmetti (2025): In June, the Court’s conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. 

What happens next in the current case?

• Since the Idaho law was stayed, or frozen, while litigation continues, Hecox was permitted to try out for Boise State’s NCAA cross country and track teams, but failed to make the team. However, she has competed in women’s club running and soccer teams at the school.
• The justices are expected to hear oral arguments in the case this fall and will likely issue their decision in Summer 2026.