Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states and schools can protect women and girls by restricting biological males from female sports teams. In a multifaceted ruling, the Court held 9-0 that banning gender-confused males from female sports does not violate Title IX, while the Justices ruled 6-3 that the ban does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The ruling resolved two consolidated landmark cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J, involving Idaho’s 2020 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” and West Virginia’s 2021 “Save Women’s Sports Act,” respectively. Both state laws protect the safety and opportunities of female athletes by barring biological males from female competitive sports teams at public schools and universities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld a lower court injunction blocking Idaho’s law while the Fourth Circuit had blocked West Virginia’s law both equating “gender identity” discrimination as sex discrimination.

The laws in Idaho and West Virginia were upheld, and the lower court decisions were reversed. The cases were sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings “consistent” with the High Court’s opinion.

The ruling’s rationale gives all 27 states with similar laws protecting women and girls in sports solid legal footing.

The question asked before the Court was “may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex?”

“The answer is yes,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion. “In sum, Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex.”

The majority opinion noted that allowing males to compete in female sports presented both an unfair advantage against and an unsafe environment for females.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” reads the opinion. “But it was surely ‘reasonable’ for [the government] in 1975 to draw a biological line—a line where biological males play only on male sports teams and only biological females play on female sports teams. Even in recent years, 27 States, the NCAA, the USOPC, and the IOC have all drawn the same line.”

As for the Equal Protection Clause, Justice Kavanaugh noted that the “same principle” applies under the Equal Protection Clause.

“In the distinctive sports context, in other words, the States may treat all biological males the same and treat all biological females the same, given the inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females,” wrote Justice Kavanaugh.  

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that nothing prohibits “sex-separated athletics.” 

“A man does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman,” wrote Justice Thomas. “…the Court recognizes, this case concerns ‘biological men’ and ‘boys who identify as girls.’ Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable ‘biological' characteristic; it is binary; and ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ ‘boy’ and ‘girl,’ are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. To use language to obscure reality—to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’— is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens ‘as equal[s].’”

While Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson also agreed that Title IX narrowly allows keeping gender-confused males out of female sports, they disagreed that these bans pass under the Equal Protection Clause, and that they need closer scrutiny to determine how broad “sex-based classifications” are under the law.

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief to the High Court stating that Title IX is based on sex, not gender identity, and any interpretation otherwise that prioritizes protections for gender identity could eliminate Title IX’s sex-based protections for women. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This is an exceptional decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Biological reality dictates that men and women are different. These laws acknowledge reality so female athletes are not competitively, physically, and emotionally harmed by gender-confused males in their sports and private spaces. Title IX’s purpose is to provide more opportunities to women and girls. Keeping biological males out of female sports preserves the entire purpose of Title IX and protects women in athletics.”