Supreme Court Upholds State Restrictions on Transgender Athlete Participation in Girls’ and Women’s Sports
On the final decision day of the October 2025 term, the Supreme Court held that state laws prohibiting transgender girls and women from participating on girls’ and women’s athletic teams do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
West Virginia v. BPJ, consolidated with Little v. Hecox, arose out of challenges to state laws that determine eligibility for girls’ and women’s sports based on “biological sex” and limit participation in those sports to “biological females.”
The Court unanimously held such laws do not violate Title IX. The majority determined (and the parties did not dispute) that the term “sex” in Title IX refers only to biological sex. It repeatedly emphasized the unique nature of athletics, relying heavily on a 1974 amendment to Title IX and ensuing regulations permitting schools to maintain sex-segregated athletic teams “where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that schools should be required to make an exception for transgender girls and women who have taken puberty blockers or hormones, concluding neither the text of Title IX nor the amendment or regulations require such an exception.
Notably, emphasizing the “vastly different” settings of employment and athletics, the Court distinguished the Title IX athletics context from its Bostock v. Clayton County decision (prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity) in the Title VII context, noting that while Title VII requires men and women “be treated without regard to their sex” in the workplace, Title IX “authorizes separate men’s and women’s sports teams.”
A majority of the Court also upheld the state laws under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Recognizing the classification as one based on sex (as opposed to gender identity), the Court applied heightened scrutiny and concluded the states’ prohibitions on transgender girls’ and women’s participation in girls’ and women’s sports were substantially related to the important state interests of safety and competitive fairness in athletics. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that safety and competitive fairness do not justify excluding transgender girls and women who have taken puberty blockers or hormones, concluding the generalized sex-based classification did not constitutionally require an individualized athlete-by-athlete comparison, which it noted would be best left to the legislature and the schools.
Importantly, the Court took care to explain that its conclusion did not answer the question of whether states may allow transgender girls and women to participate on girl’s and women’s sports teams (but noted that issue is currently pending in other cases in the lower courts). The Court further clarified that its decision does not “address or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed teams.”
Institutions should continue to closely monitor subsequent developments regarding sports participation. Should your institution have questions about this decision or its application to your institution, please do not hesitate to contact the authors of this alert or your Miller Canfield attorney.
Miller Canfield serves public and private educational institutions, including K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and athletics organizations, helping them manage legal, regulatory and operational issues in a complex education environment. Our team advises clients on Title IX, student and employment matters, investigations, litigation, governance, athletics and risk management.
