Supreme Court Upholds Save Women’s Sports Laws

Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its most consequential Title IX decisions in decades, holding that states may reserve girls’ and women’s school athletic teams for biological females without violating either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court upheld laws enacted by West Virginia and Idaho that limit participation on female athletic teams based on biological sex. The ruling affirms that Title IX permits sex-separated athletic teams based on biological sex and concludes that states have important governmental interests in protecting competitive fairness and athlete safety.

The decision carries significant implications nationwide, particularly for Texas, which enacted protections for K-12 athletics through House Bill 25 (HB 25) in 2021 and expanded those protections to public colleges and universities through Senate Bill 15 (SB 15), widely known as the Save Women’s Sports Act, in 2023.

Although the ruling represents a major victory for states defending women’s sports, the sharply divided opinions illustrate continuing disagreements over Title IX, equal protection jurisprudence, and the role of courts in resolving scientific and policy disputes.

Title IX Protects Women’s Sports

The Court began its analysis by examining Title IX, the landmark 1972 federal law prohibiting discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded education programs.

Justice Kavanaugh concluded that the ordinary meaning of “sex” when Congress enacted Title IX referred to biological sex. The opinion further explained that Congress anticipated sex-separated athletics when it adopted the 1974 Javits Amendment, directing federal regulators to issue rules governing athletic competition. Those regulations, which remain in force today, expressly authorize separate athletic teams for members of each sex in competitive and contact sports.

The plaintiffs argued that Title IX should nevertheless require schools to make exceptions for biological males who identify as female and who have undergone puberty suppression or hormone therapy.

The Court rejected that argument.

According to the majority, neither Title IX nor its implementing regulations contain language requiring schools to create individualized exceptions. Instead, the Court held that maintaining girls’ and women’s athletic teams exclusively for biological females remains fully consistent with Title IX’s goal of providing equal athletic opportunity.

The Court also rejected reliance on Bostock v. Clayton County, explaining that the employment discrimination issues addressed under Title VII differ fundamentally from the athletic context under Title IX, where Congress expressly contemplated separate athletic teams.

Equal Protection and Women’s Sports

The Court next addressed whether the West Virginia and Idaho laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court recognized that classifications based on sex must be substantially related to important governmental objectives.

According to the majority, the states identified two important interests:

First, protecting the safety of female athletes.

Second, preserving competitive fairness and equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.

The Court concluded that limiting girls’ and women’s athletic competitions to biological females is substantially related to both interests and therefore satisfies constitutional requirements.

A significant aspect of the decision was the Court’s rejection of individualized eligibility determinations. The plaintiffs argued that transgender athletes who never experienced male puberty or who underwent hormone treatment should receive case-by-case evaluations. The majority disagreed, concluding that requiring judges or schools to evaluate each athlete’s physical development, hormonal history, and competitive ability would create an unworkable system. Instead, legislatures may adopt categorical biological sex classifications without conducting individualized athletic assessments.

The Court further emphasized that ongoing medical and scientific disagreement reinforces legislative discretion rather than judicial intervention. Where reasonable disagreement exists, lawmakers retain broad authority to evaluate evidence and establish public policy.

Title IX’s Purpose

Throughout the opinion, the Court repeatedly returned to Title IX’s original purpose of expanding athletic opportunities for women.

Justice Kavanaugh traced the dramatic growth of women’s athletics since Title IX’s enactment and concluded that separate women’s teams have been essential to creating equal athletic opportunity. Rather than viewing these laws as excluding transgender athletes, the majority characterized them as preserving the very opportunities Title IX was enacted to protect for women and girls.

The Dissent’s Argument

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that the plaintiffs’ Title IX claim ultimately failed but sharply disagreed with the Court’s Equal Protection analysis.

The principal disagreement was procedural rather than philosophical.

The dissent argued that the Court resolved disputed scientific questions before lower courts had fully developed the factual record. Specifically, the dissent contended that transgender girls who never experienced endogenous male puberty and who received gender-affirming hormone treatment may not possess the same athletic advantages the states relied upon to justify their laws.

According to the dissent, if that factual premise ultimately proved true, then excluding those athletes categorically might not substantially further the state’s interests in fairness or safety. The dissent, therefore, would have allowed the litigation to continue rather than resolving the constitutional question immediately.

Justice Sotomayor also criticized the majority for affording excessive deference to legislative judgments concerning unsettled scientific questions. She argued that courts applying heightened scrutiny have an independent obligation to examine the factual record rather than simply accepting legislative findings where competing expert evidence exists.

Finally, the dissent warned that today’s reasoning could weaken Equal Protection analysis more broadly by allowing governments to rely upon broad sex classifications even when smaller, identifiable groups may not fit the underlying rationale supporting those classifications.

Justice Jackson Left Future Title IX Questions Open

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate opinion joining Justice Sotomayor while emphasizing a narrower point regarding Title IX.

She agreed that the plaintiffs’ Title IX claim failed under the arguments presented in this case. However, she argued the Court should not have broadly declared that Title IX’s reference to “sex” necessarily means only biological sex.

Instead, Jackson suggested future Title IX cases outside the athletic context may still raise unresolved questions involving transgender students in areas such as admissions, extracurricular activities, harassment, or other educational programs.

Although that discussion did not affect the outcome here, it signals that Title IX litigation involving transgender rights outside athletics is likely to continue.

Policy Implications for Texas’ Save Women’s Sports Act

For Texas, this decision significantly strengthens the legal foundation supporting existing law.

Texas first enacted protections for K-12 public school athletics through HB 25, authored by State Rep. Valoree Swanson (R-Spring), during the 87th Legislature’s Third Called Session in 2021. Lawmakers later expanded those protections to public colleges and universities through SB 15, authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), during the 88th Legislature in 2023, legislation widely referred to as the Save Women’s Sports Act. Together, these laws reserve girls’ and women’s scholastic athletic competitions for biological females.

Prior to today’s decision, Texas’s laws faced many of the same constitutional and statutory arguments raised against the West Virginia and Idaho statutes. The Supreme Court largely rejected those arguments.

Most importantly, the Court held that Title IX itself permits biological sex classifications in athletics. That conclusion substantially weakens one of the principal legal theories used to challenge state women’s sports laws. Likewise, the Court held that protecting competitive fairness and athlete safety constitute important governmental interests sufficient to justify biological sex classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

Those are the same interests Texas lawmakers relied upon when enacting the state’s Save Women’s Sports laws.

The Court also endorsed categorical eligibility standards rather than individualized athlete-by-athlete determinations. That portion of the opinion provides particularly strong support for Texas’ legislative approach, which relies upon biological sex rather than case-specific assessments of hormone treatment or athletic ability.

Although future litigation involving different factual circumstances or other areas of Title IX remains possible, today’s decision places Texas’ Save Women’s Sports framework on considerably stronger constitutional footing.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s decision represents one of the most significant Title IX rulings since the statute’s enactment more than fifty years ago.

The Court held that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate girls’ and women’s athletic teams based on biological sex and that doing so does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The majority viewed the decision as preserving the equal athletic opportunities Title IX was designed to create for women and girls. The dissent agreed that Title IX did not require a different outcome in this case but argued the Court should have permitted additional factual development before resolving the constitutional questions surrounding Equal Protection.

For Texas, however, the practical implications are clear.

The Supreme Court has now recognized that states may reserve girls’ and women’s school athletics for biological females in order to protect competitive fairness, athlete safety, and equal athletic opportunity. That holding substantially reinforces the legal foundation supporting Texas’ Save Women’s Sports laws and is likely to shape future litigation over women’s athletics for years to come.

---