This Supreme Court Case Could Redefine Title IX for Every School in America

Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026, in two cases that could change how every school in America handles transgender students’ rights. The conservative justices seemed ready to allow state laws banning transgender girls from girls’ sports teams. The justices are poised to redefine what “sex discrimination” means under federal law. The consequences could affect decisions about bathrooms, locker rooms, housing assignments, and every other space where schools have traditionally separated students by sex.

The cases involve two transgender athletes with different stories. Both challenged state laws that ban them from girls’ teams based on their biological sex at birth.

At least five of the six conservative justices appeared ready to rule that states can separate sports by biological sex—and that doing so doesn’t violate the constitutional rule that laws must treat people fairly or Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools.

Conservative Justices’ Questions

Chief Justice John Roberts focused on what the word “sex” means. He suggested the plaintiffs weren’t challenging sex-separated sports—they were asking for “an exception to the biological definition of girls.”

Justice Clarence Thomas asked a what-if question that multiple conservative justices would return to throughout the afternoon. Imagine a “lousy” male tennis player who didn’t make the men’s team wanted to try out for the women’s team, arguing he lacked any athletic advantage over the female players. How is that different, Thomas asked, from requiring schools to let transgender women compete on women’s teams? This question gets at the heart of the states’ argument: If schools must let transgender women play whenever they say they don’t have advantages, what stops any man from claiming the same thing?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that transgender boys can play on boys’ teams under these laws, so the restriction “only runs towards trans girls.” She seemed skeptical that these rules discriminate against transgender people in general, rather than applying the same male/female rules to everyone.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised a different concern. He noted that roughly half the states allow transgender girls to play while half ban them. He questioned whether the Court should impose one rule nationwide while states are still divided on this issue.

The Trump Administration’s Position

The federal government’s participation marked a sharp reversal from the Biden administration’s stance. A Trump administration lawyer argued that states only need to show their law is reasonably related to ensuring fairness in women’s sports—not a perfect match. Under this approach, states don’t need to prove that every transgender athlete still has competitive advantages. They need to show the law is reasonably related to promoting fairness generally.

President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, ordering federal agencies to define “sex” as biological sex and enforce Title IX that way. In February 2025, the Department of Education issued guidance and Dear Colleague letters enforcing this order, stating schools that allow transgender athletes to compete would lose federal funding.

The Office for Civil Rights investigation of the University of Pennsylvania concluded with a settlement signed in April 2025, publicly announced in July 2025, finding that Penn violated Title IX by letting transgender swimmer Lia Thomas compete on the women’s team in 2021-22. The settlement required Penn to remove Thomas’s records and apologize to the female athletes on the team.

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if states allowing transgender athletes would violate Title IX. The lawyer admitted the administration is challenging those policies in court.

Liberal Justices’ Questions

The three justices appointed by Democrats asked different questions, but they’re outnumbered by at least five conservative justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether blanket bans would be constitutional. She noted that laws that treat people differently based on sex get extra scrutiny. She asked why transgender athletes who’ve lowered their testosterone shouldn’t be able to prove the law doesn’t apply to them.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether the logic made sense. She suggested that while general challenges to laws allow some flexibility, individual cases should let people prove the law doesn’t apply to them. If transgender women with suppressed testosterone don’t have advantages, excluding them doesn’t match the law’s stated purpose.

What “Sex Discrimination” Could Mean Under Federal Law

The Court will decide what “sex discrimination” means in federal law. Does it include discrimination based on gender identity, or does it only refer to biological sex?

If the Court says Title IX allows schools to separate sports by biological sex, that reasoning could affect bathrooms, locker rooms, and housing. During arguments, justices asked what-if questions about whether the same logic would apply to classes, dorm rooms, and other areas where schools separate boys and girls.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon indicated the administration plans to push exactly that interpretation. Speaking outside the Supreme Court after arguments, she said the Penn settlement shows how the administration will enforce Title IX going forward. Penn agreed to define “male” and “female” based on biology in line with Title IX and Trump’s executive orders.

This could affect how courts interpret “sex discrimination” in other areas—from workplace law to housing law. This contradicts a 2020 Supreme Court decision that said workplace sex discrimination laws include discrimination based on gender identity.

The conservative justices seemed to be drawing a line: Bostock might apply to jobs where someone’s biological sex doesn’t affect the work, but in sports where biological sex affects performance, different rules apply.

The Two Cases and Mootness Question

The Idaho case involves Lindsay Hecox, who challenged the state’s law, the first such ban in the nation when enacted in 2020. She’s undergone hormone therapy that suppressed her testosterone to levels typical of cisgender women and wanted to compete on Boise State’s NCAA women’s track team. Hecox voluntarily refrained from competing under Idaho’s ban.

The West Virginia case involves Becky Pepper-Jackson, who began identifying as a girl in third grade and has been on puberty blockers and hormone therapy to prevent male puberty. She sought to join girls’ teams when she began middle school in 2021 and wants to continue on her middle school’s cross-country and track teams.

Hecox has asked the Court to dismiss her case as moot. She’s quit school-sponsored women’s sports at Boise State, doesn’t plan to play women’s sports in Idaho again, and says the litigation’s negative public attention distresses her.

Justice Sotomayor seemed interested in dismissing the case, seemingly to avoid a decision that applies nationwide and instead limit the decision’s scope to the West Virginia case. If the Idaho case is dismissed, the ruling would only apply to West Virginia’s law covering public secondary schools and colleges, leaving questions about elementary and middle schools unanswered.

What States Must Prove to Justify Male/Female Separations

A legal question emerged about what states must prove to justify male/female separations: Must they show their laws are closely connected to important government goals and must exclude all individuals, even those without competitive advantages? Or can they ban all individuals once biological sex is the rule as a valid reason for separating teams?

Idaho and West Virginia argued for the latter. If we required perfect fit, they argued, we’d have to end all male/female separations. They said the plaintiffs want special treatment for a small group rather than challenging the male/female separation itself.

The plaintiffs argued that individual cases should be judged on their own facts. If the purpose is preventing unfair competition, and a plaintiff can show she lacks competitive advantage, excluding her doesn’t match the state’s goal.

Justice Sotomayor referenced the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in United States v. Virginia, which held that VMI’s exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause. In that case, the Court ruled that VMI had to admit women and could not justify their exclusion based on generalizations about women’s abilities. She suggested similar reasoning should apply here: if the state’s justification is competitive advantage, and particular transgender women can prove they don’t have those advantages, the state should have to explain why the categorical rule still applies to them.

But Idaho’s attorney rejected this, saying VMI was a different kind of case about whether women could attend an all-male school, not a case where one woman challenged her own exclusion.

This shows two different views of how the Constitution should handle male/female separations. The conservative justices seemed to think male/female separation in sports is acceptable because biology affects athletic performance. Once a state uses male/female as the rule, courts shouldn’t question whether the rule applies to specific people. The liberal justices said each person should be judged individually: the rule must match its goal, and people who don’t fit the reason for the rule shouldn’t be excluded.

Current Status for Schools and Athletes

Until the Court rules in June or July, lower courts have temporarily blocked the state laws, so the bans aren’t in effect while the Supreme Court decides if they’re legal.

Lindsay Hecox has quit school women’s sports because of intense public criticism and stress. She joined a club team at Boise State while the ban was blocked, but has now quit that too.

Becky Pepper-Jackson is still trying to compete in her school’s track and cross-country teams. The blocked ban has let her compete, but if the Supreme Court sides with the state, she and other transgender high school athletes in West Virginia will be banned.

What happens to records and achievements from while the ban was blocked is unclear. The Penn settlement required the university to erase the transgender athlete’s records while she competed. If other schools do the same, athletes competing while the ban was blocked might have their records erased if the Court sides with the states.

In February 2025, right after Trump’s executive order, the NCAA announced it would only let people born female compete in women’s sports. This policy applies to all NCAA schools nationwide, not just those with bans, and goes much further than any state law. Athletes at NCAA schools in states that allow transgender athletes—like California and New York, which have laws protecting transgender athletes—are still banned from NCAA women’s sports if they’re transgender.

Expected Timeline and Enforcement

Experts expect the Court to rule in June 2026.

Once the Court rules, schools and athletic associations will have to create new eligibility rules, update policies, and possibly erase records. If the Court sides with the conservative justices, state legislatures without current bans might pass their own bans.

The Trump administration says it will strictly enforce a biological sex standard for Title IX through the Education Department, using lawsuits and threats to cut federal funding to force schools to adopt the same policies—even if the Supreme Court rules differently.

Implications Beyond Sports

The decision will affect how courts protect transgender rights beyond sports. When Bostock was decided in 2020, transgender rights advocates hoped courts would use the same reasoning to Title IX and other civil rights laws. The oral arguments suggested the conservative majority sees Bostock as a different kind of case: employment law doesn’t separate people by sex the way sports does.

If the Court says sex discrimination in athletics means treating people differently because of their biological sex and doesn’t include gender identity, that reasoning could weaken protections for transgender people in other education areas—bathrooms, locker rooms, housing, admissions—where schools separate boys and girls.

Justice Barrett suggested she wanted the ruling to apply only to sports. But Justice Alito’s questions about what “sex” means suggest other justices want to establish that Title IX only means biological sex and doesn’t protect gender identity.

Broader Consequences

The immediate stakes are clear: Transgender girls and women in Idaho, West Virginia, and about half the states with similar laws would be banned from competing in sports that match their gender identity.

If the Court says Title IX only means biological sex and ignores gender identity and medical treatment, that reasoning could affect other school policies and other federal laws. The Trump administration says it will use this ruling to enforce biological sex rules throughout Title IX, not just in sports.

States with transgender sports bans will likely pass new laws banning transgender people from bathrooms, locker rooms, and housing. Some states have already said they want broader restrictions, and a Supreme Court decision could give them legal justification to pass those laws.

Schools getting federal funding will likely have to change their sports policies and may remove records of transgender athletes who competed while the ban was blocked.

This decision will shape law for decades, affecting not just who plays sports but how courts interpret sex discrimination in all civil rights cases. Becky Pepper-Jackson could be banned from her sport because of her biological sex, not because of her specific abilities. Hundreds of thousands of transgender young people in American schools face laws that increasingly single them out.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.