WASHINGTON, D.C., June 30, 2026 – Today the Supreme Court issued its ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (combined with Little v. Hecox), voting 6–3 to allow discrimination against transgender athletes. The decision flies in the face of its 2020 Bostock decision, which protects trans workers under Title VII’s protections against discrimination on the basis of sex. Student athletes apparently do not enjoy the same educational protections under Title IX, and states may now prohibit trans athletes from participating in sports as their authentic selves, even though standards of fairness were already in place.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh argues that Title IX’s protections on the basis of “sex” only mean biological sex and thus the law does not require accommodating transgender athletes, a point on which even the liberal justices agree. But the majority goes further and concludes that not even the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects these transgender student athletes from discrimination. Using the same twisted logic as in past cases, the Court refuses to acknowledge a transgender identity status, but instead only defines transgender students by their biological sex, concluding they are being treated equally. Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to insist this outcome is still consistent with Bostock, while Justice Thomas wrote a particularly nasty concurrence rejecting the legitimacy of trans identities outright.
Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sotomayor describes the majority opinion as being “unencumbered by fact or law” and jumping to conclusions not supported by the factual record. For example, she notes that the majority cited a study on trans athletes that came out after the Court had heard oral argument and that was not in the record before the Court as well as a study that had been misinterpreted and whose author opposed the discriminatory law. “The majority applies its diminished view of equal protection to the sports context today, relying on the parties’ concessions that the State’s asserted interests will be furthered in most applications, given the particularly close relationship between sex, sports, and those interests,” she writes. “One can only hope that the same misguided approach does not and will not extend to other contexts tomorrow, when any of these considerations are missing.”
Alliance for Justice President Rachel Rossi issued the following statement:
“Today’s decision is a terrible setback for transgender people and the Constitution’s promise of civil rights. As we’ve watched the campaign of hate against transgender people grow over the last decade, athletic participation has too often been the gateway for many people to justify discrimination against the trans community. Transgender young people already face mounting challenges, and there are no winners when they’re further deprived of athletic opportunities and the accompanying lessons of discipline, leadership, and teamwork. It’s foolish to think that discrimination in sports — let alone in the law — improves fairness for anybody.”