Supreme Court hears arguments over transgender athlete bans in West Virginia and Idaho

Washington — The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether laws from Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and the landmark law known as Title IX.

The two states are among 27 that have enacted laws in recent years that require public and collegiate sports teams to be designated "based on biological sex" and restrict transgender girls and women from competing on the teams that correspond with their gender identity.

Two transgender athletes, Lindsay Hecox of Idaho and Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia, filed lawsuits challenging the laws in their respective states, arguing they discriminate based on sex and transgender status. The laws, the athletes say, categorically exclude all transgender girls and women from school sports altogether, and treat them worse than their peers.

But Idaho and West Virginia officials assert that their bans do not discriminate based on transgender status and draw permissible distinctions between the sexes. They say that the laws' sex-based classifications are allowed because they are substantially related to their interest in fair and safe athletic opportunities for women and girls.

Little v. Hecox

Idaho was the first state in the nation to enact a law barring transgender athletes from competing on girls' and women's athletic teams. Called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, the measure requires public school and collegiate sports teams to be designated "based on biological sex." Under the law, athletic teams designated for females, women or girls "shall not be open to students of the male sex."

If a student's sex is disputed, the law requires the athlete to provide a health examination and consent form that verifies their biological sex at birth.

Hecox, a transgender woman who wanted to compete on the women's track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho's law and argued it is unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX. Hecox, who takes hormone therapy, tried out for the university's track and cross-country teams but did not make them. She instead participated in women's club soccer and running.

Idaho's attorney general and two athletes, Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, are defending the law. Kenyon and Marshall competed on the women's track and cross-country teams at Idaho State University and placed behind a transgender student-athlete in various events in 2019 and early 2020.

U.S. District Judge David C. Nye ruled in favor of Hecox in 2020, and blocked enforcement of the ban, finding that it "discriminates between cisgender athletes, who may compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity, and transgender women athletes, who may not compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed that decision and concluded that Idaho's ban is likely unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court agreed in July to take up the challenge to the Idaho and West Virginia laws. But since then, Hecox, now 25, has sought to have the case dismissed as moot. She decided to refrain from playing any women's sports at Boise State University or in Idaho, and would not participate in any school-sponsored athletics covered by Idaho's ban. The Supreme Court will discuss whether to dismiss her case.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

West Virginia lawmakers enacted its ban, called the Save Women's Sports Act, in 2021. Like Idaho's measure, the law requires athletic teams to be designated "based on biological sex." The law states that athletic teams or sports designated for females "shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport."

Before the law took effect, Pepper-Jackson wanted to compete on the girls' cross-country and track teams, and sued to block enforcement of the ban against her, arguing it violated Title IX and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old transgender girl, began socially transitioning in third grade and has taken puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy. She is now a sophomore in high school.

In 2023, a U.S. district court upheld the law on both equal protection and Title IX grounds, finding West Virginia's classification based on biological sex is substantially related to its interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court blocked West Virginia officials from enforcing the ban against Pepper-Jackson while proceedings continued, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissent. The 4th Circuit then divided 2-1 in finding that the law violates Title IX because it discriminates based on gender identity, which it said is discrimination on the basis of sex.

The debate over transgender athletes 

It's unclear how many transgender athletes are covered by bans in the 27 states that restrict participation in girls' and women's sports. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that up to 122,000 transgender athletes could be participating in high school athletics.

Pepper-Jackson is the only openly transgender student-athlete in West Virginia, her lawyers say, and they argue that neither she nor Hecox have any athletic advantage over their female competitors because they've received gender-transition treatments. 

But West Virginia officials argue that as a result of Pepper-Jackson's participation in girls' sports, she displaced at least 400 female athletes in standings in track-and-field events in the spring 2025 season.

West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams and state officials warned that the 4th Circuit's decision requires states to treat sex and gender identity as synonymous when it comes to sports. 

"Sex affects athletic performance; gender identity does not," West Virginia lawyers wrote in a filing. "If the court below were right, then Title IX's role in preserving girls' sports opportunities would end."

In filings with the Supreme Court, Idaho officials assert that sex is biological and immutable, and causes the differences between males and females. They say their law is motivated by those physical and physiological differences, and classify based on sex to account for those distinctions.

The Trump administration is backing West Virginia and Idaho in the cases. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the practice of sex-separated sports is justified for transgender athletes, because physiological differences between males and females are unrelated to gender identity and not eliminated by medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormones.

"In short, the laws of West Virginia and Idaho place trans-identifying athletes on sports teams on the same valid, biology-based terms as everyone else," Sauer wrote. "That is the definition of equal treatment. It is not gender-identity discrimination at all, much less sex discrimination."

On the other side, Hecox's lawyers first argue her case should be dismissed because she has stopped playing any sports covered by the ban. But the legal teams for both transgender athletes also refute that Idaho and West Virginia's laws are substantially related to their interests in promoting equality and safety in female athletics. 

"The statutory text, history, and purpose lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Act intentionally treats transgender women and girls differently — and worse — by categorically barring them from playing women's and girls' sports," Hecox's lawyers wrote in a filing.

In Pepper-Jackson's challenge to West Virginia's law, her legal team says in court papers that Title IX does not authorize the "wholesale exclusion" of transgender girls from athletics. They argue the state's restriction subjects Pepper-Jackson to discrimination because it denies her equal access to athletics.