October Term 2025 · Docket 24-43

Can West Virginia Keep Transgender Girls Off Girls' School Sports Teams?

The state's law bars students assigned male at birth from girls' school sports. A student challenged it, and the Supreme Court must decide how the dispute should be resolved.

Official caption
West Virginia v. B. P. J.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The state's lawyer argued that maintaining separate boys' and girls' teams protects girls' safety and fair competition.

    The student's lawyer argued the law's exclusion conflicts with protections for individuals under Title IX's text.

    Both sides urged the Court to resolve the two claims in the case in their favor.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case is West Virginia v. B. P. J. The state defends its law as a way to keep girls' sports safe and fair. The student says the law excludes her from teams based on who she is.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

Lower courts have weighed the state's law and the student's challenge. The Supreme Court heard the dispute after those rulings.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

West Virginia wants the Court to uphold its law. It argues states have long assigned sports teams by sex and that separate teams let girls compete safely and fairly.

B. P. J. wants the law struck down. She says she joined school sports as an eleven-year-old girl starting a new middle school who wanted friends and teammates.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The state's lawyer focused on what he called the easiest ways to resolve both claims in the case.

The student's lawyer pointed to a tension between Title IX's text, which protects individuals, and regulations that allow some group-based measurements.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Gorsuch pressed why a point was missing from a brief, saying he knew what the Court had said and wondered about what it had not said.

Justice Jackson asked whether the Spending Clause's notice requirement has ever applied outside damages claims, calling that a possible crux of that approach here. She also asked who the relevant contract is between, noting schools, not the state, are the regulated party here.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Justice Thomas asked how the challenge squares with Title IX's continued existence. The justices' questions tested both sides' arguments.

Official sources for this section

What the Court decided

Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause both permit schools to keep women's and girls' sports teams limited to biological females, meaning students whose sex is determined by biology. The laws in West Virginia and Idaho are therefore constitutional and lawful.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.

  3. Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.

  4. Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.

  5. Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON