Supreme Court upholds ban on transgender sports in West Virginia and Idaho by 6-3

The Supreme Court has set a new national precedent allowing states to protect women's sports.

Judges ruled in favor of West Virginia and Idaho on Thursday against trans athletes who sued to gain access to women's sports. The states were supported by the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), while trans athletes were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Cooley Legal.

In highly anticipated rulings in West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, the high court upheld state laws requiring student-athletes to compete on sports teams that correspond with their biological sex at birth and not their gender identity.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3.

Justice Sotomayor presented an opinion partially concurring with the ruling and partially dissenting, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Jackson presented an opinion concurring in part with the ruling and dissenting in part.

Pursuant to Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that States may maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females. They can determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex.

West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey praised the court's decision in a statement to Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

“This is a monumental victory for every athlete who has ever competed, or dreamed of competing, on a fair and safe playing field. Today's Supreme Court decision affirms what common sense and the law have long made clear: states have the right to designate sports teams based on biological sex, not gender identity. Without that delineation, Title IX is left upside down and decades of hard-fought progress to advance female athletes are erased,” he said. McCuskey.

“I am immensely proud of my team for not only bringing this issue to the Court, but also for presenting strong and successful arguments. This historic victory will give all states, not just West Virginia, the clarity and confidence to ensure equity and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come.”

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrado echoed McCuskey's statement.

“Today's decision is a victory for common sense, justice and the countless girls and women who pursue athletics. Idaho led the nation by becoming the first state to protect women's sports, and I have never hesitated to defend that law,” Labrado said.

“The Supreme Court has now confirmed that states can preserve fair competition and protect the opportunities that generations of women fought to achieve. All parents can be assured that our law protects their daughters who compete in Idaho.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon later issued a statement.

“Today's ruling affirms the common-sense right of states to ban men from competing in women's sports, safeguard the integrity of women's spaces, and ensure that no woman faces discrimination based on sex,” she said. “For years, ideologues distorted Title IX to promote a radical transgender agenda, subjecting women to immeasurable harm.

“The Trump Administration has fought to restore Title IX protections for women and girls since day one. Today's ruling cements those reforms and builds on decades of work to ensure equal educational opportunities for women and girls. This is a tremendous victory and we look forward to ensuring that all educational institutions in the United States comply with the law of the land.

West Virginia's “Save Women's Sports Act” and Idaho's “Fairness in Women's Sports Act” were at the center of the fierce legal battle.

Groups of protesters stand outside the United States Supreme Court as justices hear the landmark case to decide whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls' and women's sports on Tuesday, January 13, 2026. Credit: Andrew Thomas/CNP (Andrew Thomas/CNP for Fox News Digital)

Those state laws had been blocked in recent years after trans athletes in West Virginia and Idaho filed successful lawsuits challenging them. After years of failing to make it past the appeals court, the Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases last July. Now, after oral arguments in January, the laws will be protected.

The decisions mark a massive victory for “Save Women's Sports” advocates and conservative lawmakers who passed state legislation on the issue. The ruling validates and protects the 27 other state laws that have been passed in recent years to ban biological males from women's sports.

The transgender plaintiffs were Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete seeking to run women's track and cross country at Boise State University, and Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender youth athlete in West Virginia, who sued the state while she was in high school in 2021, before recently winning a state women's track and field championship in the shot put in May.

During the oral arguments, the lawyers for both trans athletes experienced questionable moments.

Pepper-Jackson's attorney, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union, suggested that “sex” should not be legally defined. Block then fled questioning when asked to explain why after the hearing.

“I really urge the court not to make it about the definition of the sex argument,” Block originally said during the hearing.

CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE HITS THE DOJ IN TRANS SPORTS CASE: 'I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A PHD IN THESE THINGS'

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador and West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey stand outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on January 13, 2026, as the court hears cases on whether states can ban transgender girls from competing on women's sports teams based on biological sex. (Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg)

But after questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts, who insisted that sex “must mean something,” Block conceded that sex should be defined by biology for the sake of this case, but only in this case.

“I think in this case it can be accepted, for the sake of this case, that we are talking about what they have called biological sex,” he said.

Fox News Digital asked Block what his definition of “sex” is, and he refused to give a definition and then fled further questioning.

Meanwhile, Hecox's attorney, Kathleen Hartnett of Cooley Legal, admitted that the Hecox athlete was “unlikely” to graduate in May after the firm previously argued that the athlete's graduation in May would make a decision on Hecox's athletic eligibility unnecessary.

“He's unlikely to graduate in May, as my friend said, but he hopes to be able to graduate, through summer credits, in the fall,” Hartnett said just months after the firm submitted a questionable suggestion, in which Hecox stated, “I am currently enrolled in classes that may allow me to graduate in May 2026.”

Earlier in the hearing, Idaho Attorney General Alan Hurst called Hecox's May graduation date “not possible” after state leadership did some clandestine investigations to uncover Hecox's status.

AGS LEADING 'SAVE WOMEN'S SPORTS' LEGAL TEAM AT SCOTUS BATTLE REVEALS EXPECTATIONS FOR COURT DECISION

“[Boise State] “It's an Idaho client, we asked, and the university confirmed that it's unlikely to happen in the spring,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal counsel John Bursch, who has worked with the attorneys general of Idaho and West Virginia on the Supreme Court case, told Fox News Digital. “It just shows that throughout the case, Hecox has gone back and forth.”

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador said exposing the discrepancy was “important” to his arguments Tuesday.

“I think it's important. I don't think it's the main issue of the case, but I think it's important,” Labrador told Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Now, more than half of US states are empowered to enforce protections for women's sports without fear of legal challenge.

However, there are still 23 states, including California, New York and Massachusetts, that do not have such laws, and some of them have laws to protect trans athletes in women's sports.