US Supreme Court Upholds Biological Sex-Based Eligibility Criteria for Women’s School Sports

On June 30, 2026, the US Supreme Court, in West Virginia v. B.P.J., No. 24-43 held that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit States to maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams for biological females. The Court held that schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. 

The case arose in 2021 after West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits male students from participating on female sports teams. The law states that sex is determined by biology, and prohibiting biological male participation in female sports is necessary to promote equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.

The act was challenged by the respondent, who identifies as female but is a biological male. The respondent sought to participate in the girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams, stating that West Virginia officials violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favour of the State on both the Title IX and Equal Protection claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed on the Title IX issue and remanded the Equal Protection claim for further fact-finding. In the connected matter, Little v. Hecox, the Court considered Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, under which male students are prohibited from participating in female sports teams. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both matters and heard them together.

Examining the Title IX challenge, the Court noted that Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” and that its implementing regulations authorise schools to maintain separate teams for members of each sex where selection is based on competitive skill or where the activity involved is a contact sport.

The Court held that the term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment and the implementing regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. It further held that neither the text of Title IX, the Javits Amendment, nor the implementing regulations requires schools to make an exception for biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormones.

The Court rejected the contention that the regulations were unreasonable for failing to provide such an exception. It held that separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable, given the inherent physical differences between the sexes. The Court further held that although it is unfortunate whenever a student who wishes to participate in school sports cannot do so, title IX guarantees only equal athletic opportunity and not a place on a particular team. It also held that Bostock v. Clayton County, decided under Title VII, did not govern the interpretation of Title IX in the context of school sports. 

Considering the Equal Protection challenge, the Court held that the West Virginia and Idaho laws make sex-based classifications and are therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. It accepted the States’ submission that their interests in safety and competitive fairness are important governmental interests and held that limiting women’s and girls’ sports to biological females is substantially related to those interests. Accordingly, the Court held that schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. 

Rejecting the respondents’ submission that biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormones should be treated differently, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not require States to conduct individual-by-individual comparisons of physical and athletic capabilities. It was observed that legislatures and schools are better equipped than courts to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations and draw appropriate lines. 

The Court also rejected the contention that the challenged laws discriminate against transgender individuals. Relying on United States v. Skrmetti, it held that the statutes classify on the basis of biological sex rather than gender identity or transgender status. It further observed that the medical and scientific premise underlying the respondents’ challenge remains the subject of ongoing debate and that, in such circumstances, legislatures are entitled to broad discretion in framing policy. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and held that the West Virginia and Idaho laws are consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.