The Court ruled 6-3 that states may bar transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports, upholding West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Both laws define sex as determined by biology, and bar transgender girls, classified as biological male under the statutes, from girls’ teams in their respective states. The ruling protects similar bans in roughly two dozen other states from legal challenge.
Kavanaugh delivered the opinion, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Sotomayor concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Kagan and Jackson. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson all agreed on the question of Title IX, however they disagreed on the question of the Equal Protection Clause. Which means that they agreed that Title IX permits separate sports teams based on biological sex, but disagreed that the laws survive Equal Protection Clause scrutiny. Jackson also filed her own separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
B.P.J. who identifies as a female but by the definition of the Save Women’s Sport Act classified as a biological male, sued, alleging violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act that similarly prohibits transgender athletes from playing on female teams. Lindsay Hecox is another athlete who identifies as female, but by the definition of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act is also classified a biological male, sued under the same parameters.
Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex. According to the Supreme Court opinion “The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” West Virginia permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.
However, the ruling has limits. The ruling only permits that states may restrict girl’s sports to biological females. It did not say they must. The ruling protects state bans from legal challenges. The ruling also doesn’t address co-ed or boys teams at all. The Court’s opinion states: “Nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question. In addition, nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to address or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.”
The ruling clears states to ban transgender athletes from girl’s sports if they choose to but it does not force every state to do so, and it leaves open whether states without such bans could still choose to include transgender athletes.
-Elijah Iraheta, Editor in Chief, Saber News
