Map Shows States Banning Transgender Athletes as Supreme Court Rules

Nearly 30 states have laws regulating the participation of transgender athletes in youth sports, as the Supreme Court handed down an opinion ruling that Idaho and West Virginia’s bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.

The Supreme Court’s rulings come amid an ongoing national debate about how transgender athletes should be included in sports, as well as broader questions about the rights of the transgender community. It represents a win for the Trump administration, which has advocated for these bans.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 establishing that gender identity “cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex,” which the order defines as “not changeable” and “grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

Beyond Trump’s federal policy, current laws vary state-by-state, with more conservative states issuing stricter laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on sports teams that correspond with their sex assigned at birth.

How Did the Supreme Court Rule?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court, which ruled that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex rather than gender identity under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Thomas and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part but also dissenting in part, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson also filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The ruling addressed two consolidated cases: Little v. Hecox, out of Idaho, and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Idaho and West Virginia were among the first states to implement bans on transgender athletes.

In the Idaho case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2020 law barring transgender women and girls from female teams as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In the West Virginia case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar 2021 law prohibiting transgender girls from female teams under Title IX.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the two cases in January and appeared poised at the time to allow the bans to remain in place.

Which States Have Transgender Sports Bans?

Twenty-seven states have laws limiting the participation of transgender athletes, according to the nonprofit Movement Advancement Project (MAP), which tracks these laws nationwide.

The states with these bans include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, according to MAP.

Two others, Alaska and Virginia, have bans via state regulation or agency policy.

Why Are Transgender Athletes Banned?

Critics have pushed for rules barring transgender women from participating alongside other women. Proponents of these bans argue that even after somebody transitions, they may still retain physical advantages over cisgender women and girls, which would raise questions of fairness and safety.

Others, however, have argued that those policies would be unfair to transgender athletes and have accused conservatives of using the issue to attack the transgender community.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on other cases related to transgender rights. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, one of the most critical cases of the term regarding LGBTQ+ rights.

During arguments, Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst defended the state's law, saying that opponents of the ban are "seeking special treatment for males who allegedly lack an unfair advantage but only if those males also identify as transgender.

"Denying special treatment isn’t classifying on the basis of transgender status. It’s consciously choosing not to. Idaho’s sex-based classification would get intermediate scrutiny if Hecox challenged it. But Hecox’s requested relief presupposes separate women’s sports. All Hecox challenges is the law’s application to a tiny subset of males who identify as transgender and suppress their testosterone," he said.

Joshua Block, who defended the respondent in the West Virginia case, argued that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause would protect trans students' rights to play on teams that correspond with their gender identity if evidence shows there is "no difference" between trans girls and cisgender girls.

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published June 30, 2026 at 10:23 AM.