The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a string of decisions on its final day of the current session, including one involving a ban on transgender athletes.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, concur in the judgment on the basis that claims under Title IX fail on a narrower basis than the majority holds
The decision states the obvious: “The differences [between mean and women] include, among other things, height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, and jumping ability. ”
“Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks. And in virtually all competitive sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness,” Kavanaugh wrote.
She dissents from the majority’s holding under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The cases challenged the legality of state laws banning transgender student-athletes from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity.
B. P. J.
, a challenge was brought on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old transgender high school student who participates in track and field.
A biological male, Pepper-Jackson challenged West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which bars athletes assigned male at birth from competing on female sports teams.
In Little v. Hecox, a challenge to Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act was originally filed by Lindsay Hecox, a biological male who sought to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University.
They asserted these laws violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination in education.
Idaho and West Virginia argued that sports categories must be determined strictly by biological sex to preserve fair competition, safety, and athletic opportunities for biological women and girls.
In West Virginia v
During oral arguments in January 2026, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority signaled skepticism toward the athletes’ challenges.
Justices raised concerns about imposing a uniform national mandate amid continuous debate over whether hormone therapies eliminate physiological advantages.
In January when the case was argued, SCOTUSBlog reported that the high court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender women and girls from participating on female school sports teams.
Following nearly three-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in a pair of cases from Idaho and West Virginia, several justices indicated they were receptive to the states’ position that the laws are constitutional.
The court’s three liberal justices also appeared to acknowledge the legal challenges facing those contesting the laws.
During the arguments, they focused much of their questioning on narrowing the scope of any ruling or resolving one of the cases on procedural grounds rather than issuing a sweeping constitutional decision.
The Idaho case was brought by Hecox, a 24-year-old transgender woman who challenged the state’s law after seeking to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University.
Although Hecox did not make either varsity team, she later played club sports.
According to court filings, B. P. J.
has received treatment with puberty blockers and estrogen hormone therapy and has competed on her school’s track and cross-country teams.
