Media Center

July 2, 2026
Publications

On June 30, the final day of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision consolidating two cases involving state laws that prohibit transgender girls from participating on girls’ athletic teams. This article summarizes the decision, its scope and limitations, and the steps school districts should take in response.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Title IX permits biological-sex-based eligibility criteria for school athletics and that states may lawfully require separate girls’ and boys’ teams defined by biological sex. Maintaining teams restricted to biological females, and excluding transgender girls from them, violates neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Origins of the consolidated cases

The consolidated cases arose from two state laws: West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act (2021) and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (2020). Both require that eligibility for girls’ sports teams be determined by “biological sex,” defined by a student’s sex at birth. Challenges to both laws worked their way through the federal courts before the Supreme Court accepted them for review.

The Court’s holding

In practice, states may enact legislation prohibiting student athletes who were assigned male at birth and identify as female from participating on girls’ athletic teams. The Court left the question unanswered of whether districts that allow transgender girls to participate on girls’ teams are in violation of Title IX or Equal Protection.

Key limitations of the Court’s decision include:

• Permissive, not mandatory. The decision does not require schools to exclude transgender athletes from girls’ teams, but it holds only that states may do so. Districts in states without such laws retain discretion over their own athletic participation policies.
• Transgender males not addressed. The decision does not resolve whether schools may prohibit students who are female at birth but identify as male from participating on boys’ teams. The court expressly stated that: “nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to address or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.”
• Non-athletic contexts excluded. The decision is limited to athletic participation. It does not address bathroom or locker room access, dress codes, pronoun usage, or any other aspect of school operations involving transgender students.

Practical implications for Pennsylvania school districts

Under the Court’s decision, Pennsylvania school districts are now permitted, but not required, to maintain girls’ sports teams limited to biological females, students assigned female at birth.

Critically, the decision permits, but does not mandate, that states restrict athletic participation based on biological sex. Because Pennsylvania has not enacted a statute comparable to those in West Virginia or Idaho, its school districts retain discretion to set their own eligibility policies, subject to the executive order and state-law obligations discussed below.

Status of the executive order on transgender athletes

On February 5, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out Of Women’s Sports,” directing federal agencies to withhold funding from programs that allow transgender women and girls to compete in women’s sports and instructing the U.S. Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement against institutions that deny female students equal athletic opportunity.

The order remains in effect but faces an ongoing legal challenge: two transgender students in New Hampshire have sued the administration, alleging it discriminates against transgender students in violation of Title IX and the Constitution. That case, paused pending the Supreme Court’s ruling, is expected to proceed now that the opinion has issued. Administrators should monitor this litigation, as its outcome may further shape federal enforcement of athletic participation policies. It is worthy to note that the Office for Civil Rights continues to investigate school districts that have policies allowing transgender students to participate on the team associated with their gender identity.

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act: PA state law obligations for school districts

While the Supreme Court’s decision addresses federal law, Pennsylvania schools must also comply with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), which provides broader protections for gender identity than federal law.

The PHRA prohibits discrimination in education, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sex, among other protected characteristics. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which administers the PHRA, interprets sex discrimination to include discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, extending protections beyond those the Supreme Court recognized under Title IX.

Key intersection with school district practices

The tension between the decision and the PHRA is most acute in athletics, where a district’s decision to restrict girls’ teams to biological females could be challenged under the PHRA as sex- or gender-identity-based discrimination. The PHRA’s reach also extends well beyond athletics, including employment decisions, workplace policies, and educational services, all of which remain subject to its requirements regardless of the Court’s ruling. Districts should ensure that any policy revisions are narrowly tailored to avoid inadvertent liability under state law.

Recommended immediate steps for PA school districts

• Engage legal counsel. Meet with your district solicitor or outside counsel to discuss how this decision and the PHRA affect your existing policies.
• Review policies. Audit athletic participation, facility access, and related policies that may require revision in light of both the decision and PHRA obligations.
• Assess pending requests. Identify any pending accommodation or participation requests from transgender students affected by this ruling, and consult counsel before acting on them.
• Monitor developments. Continue to monitor guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the PIAA, the PHRC, and federal courts for further developments that may affect your district’s obligations.

Our firm is available to assist your district in evaluating the impact of this decision, reviewing and revising applicable policies, and ensuring compliance with both federal and state law. Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions.