Ethics CasesSport

Cases · U.S. Supreme Court / state legislatures · 2020–2026

West Virginia v. B.P.J.: The Supreme Court and Transgender Athletes

By 2026, 27 states had laws limiting girls' and women's school sports teams to students whose sex at birth was female. Two challenges reached the Supreme Court: one by B.P.J., a transgender girl in West Virginia who wanted to run cross-country and track on her middle school girls' teams, and one by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who wanted to try out for women's track at Boise State University in Idaho. Federal appeals courts had ruled for both athletes. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed both decisions. It held 6–3 that the laws did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and that West Virginia's law did not violate Title IX. The majority said states could draw sex-based lines in sports without individual exemptions, while noting the scientific questions remained debated. Dissenting justices warned of harm to transgender students. The case raises questions about equality, fairness and who decides.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Idaho enacts the first state law barring transgender girls and women from girls' and women's school sports.
  2. West Virginia enacts the Save Women's Sports Act.
  3. The Supreme Court declines to let West Virginia enforce its law against B.P.J. while litigation continues.
  4. The Fourth Circuit rules that applying the law to B.P.J. violates Title IX.
  5. The Supreme Court agrees to hear both cases.
  6. The Supreme Court hears oral argument.
  7. The Court reverses both lower-court decisions, upholding the state laws.

The ethical issues

  • Equal protection: whether sex-based sports laws discriminate unlawfully against transgender students.
  • Title IX: what "sex" means in a law meant to expand girls' opportunities.
  • Individual vs. categorical rules: whether athletes like B.P.J., who took puberty blockers, deserve exemptions.
  • Scientific uncertainty: how courts and legislators should act on contested evidence.
  • Federalism: whether states or national bodies should set eligibility rules.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Transgender studentsParticipation, belonging and protection from discrimination.
Girls and women athletesFair competition, safety and opportunities.
StatesAuthority to regulate school sports.
Schools and athletic associationsCompliance with state and federal law.
ParentsTheir children's welfare and opportunities.
Federal governmentIts interpretation of Title IX.

The case

In 2020, Idaho became the first state to bar transgender girls and women from girls’ and women’s school sports. West Virginia followed in 2021 with its Save Women’s Sports Act, which defined sports teams by “biological sex” determined at birth. By 2026, 27 states had similar laws.[1][6]

Background

West Virginia’s 2021 law restricts participation on public school teams “based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”[6] B.P.J. brought an as-applied challenge. She did not dispute that male athletes generally have athletic advantages, but argued that this generalization did not apply to a transgender girl whose hormone treatment meant she had not gone through male puberty.[6] The case is captioned with her initials, and this case study uses only those. After the Fourth Circuit ruled for her on April 16, 2024, West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court on July 11, 2024.[6]

The rules and governance

Two legal frameworks were in play. Title IX bars “discrimination on the basis of sex” in federally funded education, but its implementing regulations “expressly permit schools to maintain separate teams for ‘members of each sex.’”[6] Kavanaugh wrote that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.”[6] He distinguished Title VII, which governs employment, saying “the two factual contexts are vastly different.”[6] On individualized exemptions, he warned that “an enormous practical and administrability problem would arise if courts suddenly had to make such individualized exemptions.” He said legislatures, not courts, should design policies for transgender athletes in different circumstances.[6]

The separate opinions mattered. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his own concurrence, stressed that because Title IX is Spending Clause legislation, funding recipients must “voluntarily and knowingly” accept its conditions. He wrote that “[n]othing in Title IX clearly and unambiguously alerts funding recipients that they are prohibited from restricting a school-sponsored sports team to biological women or girls.”[6] Sotomayor agreed on Title IX only because B.P.J.’s lawyers had accepted at argument that “sex” means biological sex. She criticized the majority’s broad reading and called for an individualized approach, writing that “the ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”[6] Justice Jackson wrote separately that “the majority is wrong to suggest that the term ‘sex’ in Title IX ‘cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.’”[6]

The plaintiffs

B.P.J. is a transgender girl in West Virginia. She socially transitioned in third grade, later took puberty blockers and then estrogen, and has not gone through male puberty. She wanted to run on her middle school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.[1][5] With her mother, she sued, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, the 1972 law barring sex discrimination in federally funded education.[1]

Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman, wanted to try out for the women’s track team at Boise State University and challenged Idaho’s law.[2]

The lower courts

A federal judge initially blocked West Virginia’s law as applied to B.P.J., and she joined her school’s girls’ teams. The judge later ruled for the state, but in April 2023 the Supreme Court declined to let West Virginia enforce the law against her while her appeal continued.[1][5] In April 2024, the Fourth Circuit ruled that applying the law to her violated Title IX and sent the equal protection claim back for more fact-finding.[1][4] In Idaho, a district court blocked the law and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.[1] The Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases in July 2025 and heard arguments on January 13, 2026.[1][2] Hecox asked that her case be dismissed as moot; the Court rejected that request.[1] In a footnote, the majority explained why. In September 2025, after the Court granted review, Hecox declared an intention to stop playing women’s sports covered by the Idaho law. But in 2022 Hecox had told the Ninth Circuit of a plan to play women’s club soccer “through the remainder of my time at BSU.” The Court said the shift “may not be permanent.” It added that post-certiorari actions that would “insulate a decision from review by this Court must be viewed with a critical eye.” Because Hecox was still enrolled at Boise State, the case was not moot.[1]

The decision

On June 30, 2026, the Court reversed both decisions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.[1][3]

On equal protection, the Court held 6–3 that the laws classify by sex, not transgender status, and that sex-based sports teams satisfy intermediate scrutiny because they serve important interests in fairness and safety for girls and women. It held that states need not provide individual exemptions for athletes like B.P.J.[1] The majority noted that the scientific premises on both sides were “the subject of ongoing medical and scientific debate,” and said the Constitution leaves such questions to the democratic process.[1] It also held that West Virginia’s law did not violate Title IX.[1] The syllabus framed the question as whether schools “may determine eligibility for female sports based on biological sex.” It noted that “in the past six years, 27 States have enacted laws that maintain female sports for biological females.” On the medical evidence, the Court said the plaintiffs’ premise was “not settled in their direction at this time.” It added that, even if the premise were true, “that empirical claim would not alter the equal protection conclusion.” Echoing an earlier decision, it said it would “leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”[1]

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority in full and wrote a concurrence of his own. He argued that “transgender status is not a suspect class requiring heightened equal-protection scrutiny.”[1]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Justice Jackson separately, wrote opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Sotomayor agreed that B.P.J.’s Title IX claim failed, on narrower grounds. But she argued that unresolved factual questions, including whether a girl who never went through male puberty has any advantage, should have been sent back for fact-finding. She noted that B.P.J. was the only transgender girl publicly identified in West Virginia who had sought to play girls’ sports.[1]

Aftermath

Legal experts described the ruling as narrow. It allows states to restrict girls’ and women’s teams by biological sex but does not require them to.[6] Conservative advocacy groups, including Alliance Defending Freedom, said they would use the ruling to push for similar bans in Democratic-controlled states.[6]

The core dilemma

The ruling decided what the Constitution allows, not what is right. Supporters of the laws see a clear rule that protects girls’ opportunities. Opponents see the exclusion of children like B.P.J., who never experienced the physical changes of male puberty. How should a girls’ category be defined?

Competing values

  • Fairness and safety vs. inclusion: protecting the girls’ category against participation for transgender girls.
  • Bright lines vs. individual assessment: simple rules against tailored ones.
  • Democratic choice vs. minority rights: state legislatures against protection for a small group.
  • Settled law vs. unsettled science: legal finality against evolving evidence.

Strongest arguments

For the laws: sex-based teams exist because of physical differences. Clear rules avoid intrusive individual testing and protect girls’ places, records and scholarships.

Against the laws: blanket bans exclude students with no meaningful advantage, especially those who did not go through male puberty, and send a message of exclusion to a vulnerable group.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks how to distribute the benefits of sport fairly: competitive fairness and safety for girls and women on one side, inclusion and equal treatment for transgender girls on the other. It also asks whether categorical rules or individual assessments are the fairer way to draw lines.

Rights

A rights lens weighs claims to equal protection and freedom from sex discrimination against claims to a protected category in sport. It also asks who should decide, courts or legislatures, when scientific evidence is disputed.

Ethics of care

The care lens focuses on the young people affected: a child excluded from her school team, and girls who feel the integrity of their competition is at stake. It asks how schools can respond with dignity whatever the law permits.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are a state athletic association director after the ruling, in a state with no law on transgender participation. The stakeholders include transgender students, other girls and their families, coaches, schools, legislators and advocacy groups. The codes in play are Title IX, state law and association rules.
  2. Gather facts. What does the ruling require, and what does it merely permit? What does the evidence say about advantages at different ages and after different treatments? How many students are affected?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) adopt a categorical rule based on sex at birth; (b) adopt eligibility criteria by age, level or treatment; (c) keep current inclusion policies and create open or additional categories. Weigh fairness, safety, inclusion and legal risk.
  4. Check codes and law. Would your policy hold up behind a veil of ignorance about which student you would be? Does it comply with state and federal law?
  5. Decide and document. Record the evidence considered, the consultation process and the reasons for the rule.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate the policy clearly and respectfully, protect students’ privacy, and review it as the law and science develop.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the laws are constitutional and West Virginia’s law complies with Title IX.
  • Contested: the science of advantage before and after puberty; the ethics of categorical exclusion; how far other states and bodies will go.

Why this case matters

The decision settled a national legal question about school sports and will shape policies for millions of students. The ethical debate continues in schools, families and governing bodies.

Key terms

Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Title IX
The 1972 U.S. law barring sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, including school and college athletics.
Veil of ignorance
Rawls’s test for fair rules: design the policy as if you did not know which position you would end up in.
Reasonable accommodation
Adjusting conditions so people can take part, without lowering the standard. Fairness isn’t sameness.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. The Court said states may use sex-based categories without individual exemptions. Should an athlete like B.P.J., who never went through male puberty, be treated differently? Why or why not?
  2. Is the purpose of the girls' category to protect fairness, safety, opportunity or something else? How does the answer affect who should be included?
  3. The majority acknowledged ongoing scientific debate. How should lawmakers act when evidence is contested?
  4. Should eligibility rules for school sports be set by states, schools, athletic associations or national bodies?
  5. What can schools do to keep transgender students involved in sport within these laws?

Sources

  1. West Virginia v. B.P.J., opinion of the Court — Supreme Court of the United States
  2. Little v. Hecox — SCOTUSblog
  3. Court upholds bans on transgender athletes in girls and women sports — Associated Press
  4. B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education (4th Cir. 2024) — Justia
  5. Supreme Court won't enforce West Virginia law banning trans athletes from girls' teams — NPR
  6. West Virginia v. B.P.J. — Wikipedia