Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The Supreme Court will decide in 2026 whether schools can separate bathrooms, locker rooms, and dorms by sex—or whether doing so violates federal law when it excludes transgender students. Two cases the Court will hear in January are framed as sports cases, but everyone involved—advocates and opponents alike—agrees the answer will reach far beyond athletics. The justices are deciding whether Title IX’s rule against sex discrimination protects transgender students at all, and if so, how.
The cases are Little v. Hecox from Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Both challenge state laws banning transgender girls from girls’ sports teams. The Court’s ruling will set the legal standard that school administrators, housing officials, and state legislators must follow when interpreting Title IX for years to come. The Court’s decision on sports will also answer the bathroom question, the locker room question, and the dormitory question.
The Bostock Precedent
In 2020, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, an employment discrimination case under federal law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 majority, held that firing someone for being transgender counts as sex discrimination. His logic was straightforward: you cannot discriminate against a transgender person without taking their sex into account, because the discrimination only makes sense by comparing their sex to their gender identity.
However, Gorsuch added a limitation that has affected every case since. He wrote that the decision applied only to Title VII employment discrimination, and that the Court was not prejudging how other federal statutes might work. Civil rights advocates argue that Bostock’s logic should apply to Title IX—both statutes prohibit sex discrimination using nearly identical language. States have countered that education presents different considerations that might justify sex-based classifications.
Last June, the Court decided United States v. Skrmetti, the Tennessee gender-affirming care case. Tennessee had banned puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors. Civil rights organizations challenged the law as sex discrimination. The conservative majority disagreed, but not by limiting Bostock directly. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Tennessee’s law regulated medical treatment and age-based restrictions, not sex itself. The Court held that this particular law did not involve sex discrimination at all.
Now, with the sports cases, the Court must directly address whether state bans constitute sex discrimination under Title IX. Either these bans are sex discrimination—in which case Bostock’s logic extends to education—or they are not, and schools can maintain categorical sex-based classifications regardless of gender identity. The reasoning the justices choose will determine far more than sports eligibility.
What Title IX Says
Congress in 1972 wrote broadly applicable language without detailed regulations. When Congress wrote “sex,” what did they mean? Sex assigned at birth? Sex defined by chromosomes and reproductive anatomy? Sex as a legal category that schools could define by policy?
The Obama administration tried to answer these questions in May 2016, issuing guidance that Title IX’s rule against sex discrimination extends to discrimination based on gender identity. Schools should allow transgender students to access facilities matching their gender identity, the guidance said. States sued immediately and obtained a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement. The guidance was rescinded by the Trump administration in 2017.
The Supreme Court has never directly addressed how Title IX applies to transgender students. In 2021, the Court declined to hear the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy denied access to boys’ bathrooms at his Virginia high school. By declining the case, the Court let the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Grimm’s favor stand, but did not set a rule that lower courts had to follow. Lower courts disagree about whether Bostock’s logic extends to Title IX.
This uncertainty has put schools in a difficult position. A district in a state without explicit facility access laws faces potential Title IX complaints from parents of transgender students denied access to bathrooms matching their gender identity. The same district faces counterclaims from parents of cisgender students if transgender students are permitted such access. Districts must predict how the Supreme Court will rule to decide what policies to adopt.
Some states have passed legislation defining “sex” in educational contexts to mean biological sex determined at birth, attempting to resolve the Title IX debate through state law. But these laws themselves face challenges as potentially going beyond what states are allowed to do with federal law.
Bathrooms, Housing, and Locker Rooms
A high school in Wisconsin maintains separate bathrooms for boys and girls. A transgender girl requests access to the girls’ bathroom consistent with her gender identity. If the Supreme Court rules that categorically excluding transgender girls from girls’ facilities constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX, then Title IX would seemingly require the school to grant access. But if the Court rules that Title IX permits categorical sex-based classifications defined biologically at birth, Wisconsin state law or school board policy could maintain such separation.
In Skrmetti, the Court did not hold that laws affecting transgender people face only minimal judicial scrutiny. Rather, it held that Tennessee’s particular law faced the weakest legal standard because it classified on the basis of age and medical purpose, not sex or gender identity. This raises a question: could schools argue that bathroom policies classify on the basis of privacy interests and safety rather than sex discrimination? Or does the fact that a policy applies differently to transgender students versus cisgender students constitute sex discrimination requiring justification?
Dormitory housing raises more complex questions. Many colleges have separated residential housing by sex since Title IX’s enactment. When a transgender student wants housing matching their gender identity, it raises questions about whether housing assignment constitutes an educational program covered by Title IX’s rule against sex discrimination. Most legal experts believe it does. But if it does, what framework applies? Must schools maintain sex-separated housing, or can they argue that segregated housing itself violates Title IX by perpetuating sex-based classifications that discriminate against transgender students?
Some institutions have offered gender-neutral or all-gender housing options. But many maintain binary sex-separated housing as the default. A Supreme Court decision clarifying Title IX’s approach to sex classification could require schools to eliminate sex-separated housing or validate their right to maintain it.
Locker rooms involve partial or complete nudity and raise specific privacy and dignity concerns. The legal question is the same: if Title IX forbids sex discrimination and a policy applies differently to transgender students than to cisgender students, does that constitute prohibited discrimination? Or can schools maintain sex-separated locker rooms as reasonable classifications justified by legitimate privacy interests?
Dress codes present a related question. Some schools maintain policies prohibiting boys from wearing dresses or makeup, or prohibiting girls from wearing certain clothing. When applied to transgender students, these policies depend on sex—the dress code treats the same clothing differently depending on the student’s sex or gender identity. Does this constitute sex discrimination under Title IX? A Court decision saying that sex-based rules count as sex discrimination would seemingly require schools to abandon such policies. A decision establishing that sex-based classifications are permissible would validate them.
State Laws in Conflict
Several states have enacted restrictions on transgender students’ access to facilities. North Dakota has enacted multiple layers of restrictions, including limitations on bathroom access for transgender students. Ohio lawmakers have advanced a ban on transgender students using bathrooms that fit their gender identity in K-12 schools and higher education institutions. New Hampshire’s legislature is considering SB 268, a bill that provides that certain designations by biological sex do not constitute unlawful discrimination.
Meanwhile, other states have adopted opposite policies. California law has permitted transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity and to access bathrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity since 2013. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a brief arguing that inclusive policies like California’s have not deprived cisgender students of athletic opportunities. New Jersey, New York, and several other states have similarly adopted policies affirming access based on gender identity.
These conflicting state laws have made it hard for schools to follow the rules. A school superintendent in Idaho now faces an explicit state law prohibiting bathroom access based on gender identity, but operates schools receiving federal Title IX funding that, under the Biden administration’s interpretation, requires nondiscrimination based on gender identity. If the superintendent follows state law and denies bathroom access, the district could lose federal funding for violating Title IX. If the superintendent follows the federal interpretation and permits access, the district risks state legal action.
The Supreme Court’s decision should address this conflict. School districts have attempted various interim solutions. Some permit transgender students to choose facilities matching their gender identity. Some have created gender-neutral or all-gender options for bathrooms and locker rooms. Others keep separate bathrooms but try to help transgender students in other ways. These different approaches have led to lawsuits that might help the Supreme Court decide, but also reveal the uncertainty administrators face.
Heightened Scrutiny and Constitutional Protection
Beneath the surface lies a constitutional question that will determine the fate of all transgender-related legislation, not school policies. This concerns “heightened scrutiny”—a legal rule that requires the government to have a strong reason for treating groups differently. Courts usually require the government to have a good reason for sex-based rules. Courts give extra protection to groups that have been discriminated against, have little political power, and where the trait does not affect job performance.
Transgender rights advocates argue that transgender people deserve stronger legal protection given their history of discrimination, limited political power, and the fact that gender identity bears no relationship to educational or athletic performance.
Skrmetti did not decide whether transgender people deserve stronger legal protection from discrimination. The Court held that Tennessee’s law did not classify on any basis warranting heightened review because it regulated age and medical purpose, not sex or transgender status.
The sports cases may force the Court to confront this question directly. The plaintiffs argue that state laws make broad assumptions about sex without considering individual differences—specifically, that all people with typical male puberty possess athletic advantages. This argument suggests courts should demand stronger justification. States argue that biological sex alone is enough reason, and that no heightened scrutiny is needed because the laws classify based on sex, not gender identity.
If the Court says transgender people deserve stronger legal protection, it would likely strike down sports bans, bathroom bans, housing restrictions, and other laws that treat transgender people differently. If the Court says these laws only need weak legal justification, then courts would probably allow almost any law targeting transgender people as long as the government has any reason for it.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, author of Bostock, is widely viewed as a potential swing vote. In the medical care case, Gorsuch did not speak up or explain his vote. He ultimately joined the conservative majority without writing separately. He voted to permit a law affecting only transgender minors despite writing Bostock, which said discrimination against transgender people counts as sex discrimination. Legal experts wonder if he truly agreed with the majority or went along with it. In the sports cases, Gorsuch’s vote could determine the outcome.
Current School Practices
A typical high school with 1,500 students might have fifteen bathrooms labeled for boys or girls, with additional single-occupancy bathrooms sometimes available. School policy usually requires students to use bathrooms that match their sex. If a transgender student requests access to a bathroom matching gender identity rather than sex recorded at birth, the school faces a decision point.
Some schools let transgender students use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. Others have created gender-neutral bathrooms as an alternative. Others keep separate bathrooms but try to help transgender students in other ways, such as permitting access to faculty or single-occupancy restrooms.
Locker rooms are more complicated to handle. Many high schools have locker rooms where students change for gym class or sports. These locker rooms are usually separated for boys and girls, and students change in open areas. When a transgender student wants to use the locker room matching their gender identity, it raises practical questions: does the school need to build additional privacy barriers or individual changing stalls? Does the school need to establish schedules ensuring cisgender and transgender students are not simultaneously present?
Universities usually assign housing either randomly or by considering roommate preferences, and they usually separate housing by sex. Most universities maintain separate residential facilities for men and women, though nearly all offer some gender-neutral or all-gender housing options. When a transgender student wants housing matching their gender identity, it raises questions about whether the university must permit such housing, and whether having separate housing for boys and girls violates the law. The Supreme Court could require universities to either stop separating housing by sex or at least let transgender students choose housing matching their gender identity.
Athletics raise questions about who can compete, locker room access, and facility use. A transgender athlete might be allowed to compete in one state but not another, even though both states receive federal education money. Some states let transgender girls compete if they meet certain conditions, like testosterone levels or how long they have identified as girls. Others maintain categorical bans. The Supreme Court will probably set one federal rule that overrides state laws.
Why the Court Moved Quickly
The Supreme Court decided to hear these cases quickly. The Court agreed to hear them in July 2025, weeks after deciding Skrmetti. ACLU attorney Joshua Block called the timeline a “surprise,” noting that five justices in Skrmetti did not want to make a broader ruling about transgender people. Yet the conservative majority quickly agreed to hear the sports cases, even though they usually prefer narrow rulings.
This suggests that at least five justices think the sports cases need a direct answer. The speed suggests the conservative majority wants to give a clear answer instead of letting lower courts keep disagreeing.
What Comes Next
The Court will decide whether Title IX’s rule against sex discrimination covers discrimination based on gender identity, or whether schools can use sex-based rules that keep transgender students out of facilities matching their gender identity. The Court’s ruling will affect not only sports but how schools handle sex discrimination for years to come. The decision—likely coming by the end of June 2026—will determine how school leaders and state officials handle bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, and other facilities.
If the Court protects transgender students’ access to facilities matching their gender identity, schools will have to change their policies and might face federal investigations. If the Court allows state bans and limits Title IX’s protections, schools can keep separate facilities but might face federal pressure.
The decision will affect not only transgender students but how all schools organize bathrooms and facilities. A case that seems to be about sports will answer questions about bathrooms, dorms, and whether schools can have separate facilities for boys and girls at all.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.