SCOTUS protects girls in sports, upholds biological reality | Opinion

If you need a reason why the U.S. Supreme Court's June 30 decision in two cases preserving fairness in girls' and women's sports are so important, look to California.

For the second year in a row, a transgender athlete and biological male, AB Hernandez, won two track and field state championships in late May ‒ no surprise, given the inherent advantages biological men have over women in athletics.

A rule change shortly ahead of last year's high school championship competition – prompted by the threat of withheld funding from the Trump administration – prevented Hernandez from "displacing" girls in the competition. Yet they still had to share the podium with Hernandez, who received medals. It's a humiliation these young women shouldn't have to endure.

The Supreme Court's ruling won't force California and other progressive states to change their unfair policies. What it will do is allow the 27 states that have passed laws banning transgender athletes from female teams to enforce those provisions.

In the combined opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court concluded the "term 'sex' in Title IX ... cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex."

That's a huge win for the states and female athletes who have fought for this clarification.

States can protect women's and girls' sports

The justices considered two cases dealing with these state laws, Little v. Hecox out of Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The court heard arguments in January.

In both cases, transgender athletes challenged the state provisions, claiming they violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools and colleges that take public funds. The 1972 statute was created to offer equal opportunities for girls and women in sports.

In the Idaho case, specifically, the court considered "whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex" violate the Constitution.

The West Virginia case presented two questions related to whether the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX prevent states from designating girls' and boys' sports teams "based on biological sex determined at birth."

The court found that neither the Constitution nor Title IX bars a state from separating sports teams this way. That means Idaho and West Virginia, along with the 25 other states with similar laws, can protect girls from the unfairness and safety risks that come with having to compete against the opposite sex.

"Now these states will be able to do that and they won't have their laws suspended," said Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which served as co-counsel for both cases and represented individual female athletes who intervened – Lainey Armistead of West Virginia and Madison Kenyon of Idaho.

The momentum favors fairness in sports

This decision comes at a time when the momentum favors keeping biological men out of women's sports and spaces. About 80% of the country believes that transgender athletes shouldn't play on girls' and women's teams.

President Donald Trump ran on the issue in 2024 and delivered on that promise at the beginning of his second term, issuing an executive order demanding fairness in female sports.

And former President Joe Biden's misguided attempt to rewrite Title IX by replacing "sex" with "gender identity" was tossed by a lower court in early 2025.

These are all promising developments for those who've raised alarms on this issue for years. I commend the young women who have stood up to make their concerns known, even when it meant enduring public shaming.

Biological reality matters, and the Supreme Court acknowledged that by allowing states to do what's right.

Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: SCOTUS protects girls in sports, upholds biological reality | Opinion

Reporting by Ingrid Jacques, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published June 30, 2026 at 10:38 AM.