This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and it reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, sending the case back for further proceedings.
Background and question before the Court
In 2021 West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act, which bars male students from playing on female teams.
The case was argued on January 13, 2026 and decided on June 30, 2026.
According to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., the central question was whether Title IX requires schools to allow transgender girls, such as B. P. J., to compete on girls’ sports teams.
What each side argues
Petitioners – West Virginia and Others
West Virginia argues that the Save Women’s Sports Act is a permissible sex‑based classification that furthers the State’s interests in safety and competitive fairness for women and girls.
According to Michael R. Williams, states have historically assigned students to sports teams by sex, and West Virginia contends that this practice is consistent with Title IX’s purpose of protecting educational opportunities for girls.
Respondent – B. P. J.
According to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., b. P. J. argues that Title IX requires schools to allow transgender girls, who have taken puberty blockers or hormones, to compete on girls’ teams.
According to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., b. P. J. relies on the 1974 Javits Amendment, which directs the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to adopt reasonable provisions for particular sports.
According to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., according to B. P. J., b. P. J. cites Title VII (Bostock) and argues that its reasoning should extend to Title IX, requiring inclusion of transgender students on girls’ teams.
According to B. P. J., b. P. J. also contends that the State’s ban violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked the parties to define how Title IX defines “sex.”
Justice Sotomayor asked the parties about their view of Title IX’s definition of sex.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh inquired about the relevance of Bostock to the case.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned whether the Court should adopt an operating definition of “sex” in Title IX.
What the Court decided
Held: Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex.
The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
According to Justice Otomayor, dissent (Justice Otomayor): The Court should not decide policy questions and should leave them to the democratic process.
According to Justice Sotomayor, dissent (Justice Sotomayor): B. P. J. is a transgender girl seeking to live consistent with her gender identity; the ban eliminates an individualized approach.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that Title IX does not require schools to include transgender girls on girls’ sports teams, preserving the ability of states to enact sex‑based classifications for athletic competition.
According to Justice Otomayor, the dissent highlights the broader societal debate over transgender rights and signals that the Court chose to avoid making policy judgments, leaving the issue to legislatures and the public.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1bfcd720c29cb81b7ce3-r1-bca8a6a7a2d2d912.pdforal argument transcript
- df70578c7cfb9826d523-r1-43a1a329994be812.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 18, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.