Supreme Court Takes Up Landmark Cases on Transgender Athlete Participation

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender women and girls from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams. These cases – Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. – will be among the most closely watched of the upcoming 2025–26 term, with oral arguments scheduled for this fall and a decision likely in 2026.

What’s at stake

These state laws, Idaho’s landmark Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (2020) and West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act (2021), restrict athletic participation based solely on biological sex assigned at birth and have been blocked by lower courts. Challengers argue they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education.

Background on the cases

Idaho – Little v. Hecox
Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and student-athlete at Boise State University, sued under the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act after it prevented her from joining women’s track and cross-country teams. A federal district court granted an injunction, a decision upheld by the 9th Circuit, which ruled the law likely conflicts with constitutional protections.

West Virginia – West Virginia v. B.P.J.
B.P.J., a transgender middle-schooler, challenged the state ban after it denied her access to girls’ teams. The 4th Circuit ruled the law likely violates Title IX. The Supreme Court previously declined West Virginia’s request to enforce the law while litigation continued.

Broader legal and political context

This step follows the Court’s June ruling (6–3 conservative majority) allowing states to restrict gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, signaling a judicial shift on related issues.

Furthermore, President Trump’s Executive Order 14201 (“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”) removed federal funds from schools that allow trans girls to compete, adding pressure for a Supreme Court resolution.

Stakes and implications

• Constitutionality of sex-based classification: The Court must decide whether limiting sports participation on that basis violates foundational civil rights protections.
  
• Impact on Title IX and equal protection law: Acceptance or reversal of lower-court rulings could redefine legal standards for when discrimination against transgender people constitutes sex discrimination.
  
• National consequences: As of now, 27 states have passed similar bans. A Supreme Court decision will likely influence future legislation and policy in athletics, education, and public life.
  

Reactions

• State officials insist these are common-sense laws for preserving fairness in women’s sports. Idaho’s AG and West Virginia’s AG JB McCuskey have both welcomed the Court’s agreement to hear the cases.
  
• Trans-rights advocates (ACLU, Lambda Legal) argue these bans stigmatize and harm transgender youth, depriving them of crucial opportunities for social and physical development.
  

What comes next

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in both cases during the fall term beginning October 2025, with rulings expected in 2026. These decisions will be pivotal in determining whether state laws can bar transgender girls and women from sports teams that align with their gender identity, or if such exclusions violate civil rights protections under Equal Protection and Title IX.