Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Involving Transgender High School Athletes
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a high-stakes legal battle over transgender participation in women’s sports, a case that could shape the future of Title IX enforcement and state authority nationwide.
Oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday will focus on challenges to laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit biological males from competing on female-only sports teams in public schools and colleges. Nearly 30 states have enacted similar measures, arguing they are necessary to protect fairness, safety, and opportunities for women and girls.
Both laws were previously blocked by lower courts.
Idaho became the first state to act in 2020 with its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, followed by West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act in 2021. In 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily halted enforcement of West Virginia’s law while litigation continued.
Now, with President Donald J. Trump serving his second term, the Justice Department is backing the states—marking a sharp departure from prior administrations that aligned with activist groups pushing to redefine sex-based protections under federal law.
The cases were brought by Lindsay Hecox in Idaho and Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia.
Hecox, a 24-year-old Boise State University senior, has moved to dismiss her lawsuit as she prepares to graduate in spring 2026 and no longer plans to compete in women’s sports in Idaho—raising questions about whether her case should proceed at all.
Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old who has identified as female since third grade, continues to challenge West Virginia’s law. She has competed in girls’ track and field events, placing third in the discus and eighth in the shot put at a state meet—results that have fueled ongoing debate over competitive balance.
The controversy has not been without incident. Reports indicate that Pepper-Jackson has faced harassment, while two West Virginia students have also alleged misconduct connected to the dispute.
Supporters of the laws argue that allowing biological males to compete in female sports undermines decades of progress secured by Title IX.
“States like Idaho and West Virginia, along with supporting groups, insist these laws protect student safety and maintain a level playing field, citing physical differences between males and females as justification,” said Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador.
“Idaho’s women and girls deserve an equal playing field. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports.”
Legal analysts say the Court may issue a narrow ruling, potentially allowing states and Congress to retain primary authority over sports eligibility policies rather than imposing a sweeping federal mandate.
A decision is expected by late June 2026.
The Court’s upcoming transgender sports ruling follows another decision last week that underscored judicial restraint.
In a 7–2 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected claims from two veterans who argued their disability benefits were unfairly denied. The justices held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not required to reweigh the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule in most cases.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said lower courts are only obligated to review cases for legal or clear factual errors—not to second-guess agency determinations.
“We assert that the Veterans Court must evaluate the VA’s application of the rule in the same manner as any other determination—by examining legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error,” Thomas wrote.
Together, the cases reflect a Court increasingly skeptical of judicial activism—and more willing to leave policy decisions where the Constitution places them: with the states, Congress, and the elected branches.