In a consolidated opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court concluded that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.”
President Trump and Republicans react to SCOTUS ruling on transgender women in sports
President Donald Trump reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding a ban on transgender women playing on women’s sports teams.
If you need a reason why the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30 decisions in two cases preserving fairness in girls’ and women’s sports are so important, just look to California.
AB Hernandez, a transgender athlete and biological male, won his second consecutive state championship in track and field in late May. This is not surprising given that biological males are inherently better than females in athletics.
A rule change was made just before last year’s high school championships that prevented Hernandez from “banning” female athletes from the tournament after the Trump administration threatened to withhold funding. Still, he had to share the podium with Hernandez, who won a medal. This is a humiliation that young women should not have to endure.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not force California or other progressive states to make unfair policy changes. This would allow the 27 states that have passed laws banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s teams to enforce those rules.
In a consolidated opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court concluded that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.”
This is a huge victory for the state and female athletes who have been fighting to get this figured out.
Trans athlete cites Title IX of the Constitution
The justices considered two cases dealing with these state laws: Little v. Hecox in Idaho and West Virginia v. BPJ. The court heard arguments in January.
In both lawsuits, transgender athletes challenged the state’s regulations, arguing they violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools and universities receiving public funds. The 1972 law was enacted to provide equal opportunities for girls and women in sports.
In the Idaho case, the court specifically considered whether “laws that seek to protect women’s and girls’ sports by restricting women’s and girls’ participation on the basis of sex” violate the Constitution.
The West Virginia case raised two questions: whether the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX prevent states from designating women’s and men’s sports teams “based on biological sex as determined at birth.”
The court found that neither the Constitution nor Title IX prevent states from separating sports teams in this manner. That means Idaho and West Virginia, along with 25 other states with similar laws, can protect girls from the unfairness and safety risks that come with having to compete with the opposite sex.
“Now these states will be able to do that and the law will not be suspended,” said Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which served as co-counsel on both cases and represents the individual female athletes who intervened, Lainey Armistead of West Virginia and Madison Kenyon of Idaho.
Most people in the country think trans athletes shouldn’t play on women’s teams.
This decision was made with momentum toward excluding biological males from women’s sports and spaces. Approximately 80% of the public believes transgender athletes should not play on women’s teams or women’s teams.
President Donald Trump ran on the issue in 2024 and made good on that promise early in his second term, issuing an executive order calling for equity in women’s sports.
And former President Joe Biden’s misguided attempt to rewrite Title IX by replacing “sex” with “gender identity” was rejected by a lower court in early 2025.
These are all encouraging developments for those who have been sounding the alarm on this problem for years. We applaud the young women who stood up to make their concerns known, even if it meant enduring public shaming.
Biological reality matters, and the Supreme Court recognized it by allowing states to do the right thing.
Ingrid Jack is a columnist for USA TODAY. Contact ijacques@usatoday.com or X:@.Ingrid Jacks.
