World Peace

Explain: “Supreme Court Suggests It Will Uphold Restrictions On Transgender Women In Sports”

GoogleAI Mode: “On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two pivotal cases—Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J.—regarding state laws that ban transgender women and girls from participating in female sports. 

The suggestion that the Court will uphold these restrictions stems from several key observations during the hearings: 

Skepticism Toward Challenges: The 6-3 conservative majority signaled sympathy for the state laws, with key “swing” justices expressing skepticism toward the arguments that these bans violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.

Concerns Over “Fairness”: Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically voiced concerns that overturning these restrictions could “undermine” the success and fairness of women’s sports. He noted that individual girls who lose out on spots or medals could suffer “harm” if trans-inclusive policies were mandated.

Deference to States: Some justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned why the Court should create a nationwide constitutional rule while there is still significant public and scientific debate on the matter.

Administrative Support: The Trump administration participated in the arguments, defending the state bans by asserting that biological sex is the relevant factor in athletics and that such distinctions do not constitute unlawful discrimination. 

Why This Matters

National Precedent: A ruling in favor of the states would likely validate similar laws already enacted in 27 states.

Broader Implications: Experts suggest the decision could influence other legal battles regarding transgender rights, including policies on bathrooms, gender-affirming care, and legal identification documents.”

Specific Arguments Presented by the ACLU on Behalf of the Student-Athletes

GoogleAI Mode: “In the January 13, 2026, oral arguments for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the ACLU and co-counsel presented several specific legal and factual arguments to challenge state-level bans on transgender women in sports:

Absence of Competitive Advantage: ACLU attorney Joshua Block emphasized that his client, Becky Pepper-Jackson, has no physiological advantage over cisgender girls because she has been on puberty-delaying medication and feminizing hormone therapy, never undergoing male puberty.

“Sex” Includes Gender Identity: Drawing on the 2020 Bostock precedent, the ACLU argued that Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” naturally encompasses gender identity. They compared the lack of a statutory definition for “sex” to the lack of one for “race,” arguing the Court does not need to redefine “sex” to find these bans discriminatory.

Heightened Scrutiny for Equal Protection: The ACLU contended that transgender individuals should be treated as a “quasi-suspect class,” meaning any law targeting them must undergo “heightened scrutiny”—a rigorous review requiring the state to prove the ban is “substantially related” to an important government interest.

Harms of “Gender Policing”: Attorneys argued that categorical bans invite invasive “sex testing” and harassment of all female athletes who do not fit narrow, stereotypical ideas of femininity, thereby making school environments less safe for both cisgender and transgender girls.

Request for a Narrow Fact-Based Ruling: Rather than a sweeping nationwide rule, the ACLU urged the Court to send the cases back to lower courts for a full exploration of the medical facts, arguing the science of transgender athletics is still developing and should not be settled by a broad constitutional decree. 

A final ruling is expected by Spring 2026.”

The DOJ Counter Argument

GoogleAI Mode: “During the January 13, 2026, oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) supported state bans on transgender women in sports, arguing that biological differences between males and females justify sex-separated teams. The DOJ contended that focusing on biological sex at birth, rather than testosterone levels or gender identity, ensures fairness and safety for biological women and girls, while also asserting that federal law should not promote “gender ideology”.”

THE PREDICTIONS

What are the predictions?

GoogleAI Mode: “Following the oral arguments on January 13, 2026, legal experts and observers have highlighted several likely outcomes for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox:

1. Likely Upholding of State Bans

Legal analysts widely predict the 6-3 conservative majority will rule in favor of the states. During arguments, several conservative justices appeared receptive to the states’ claims that separating sports by biological sex is consistent with Title IX’s original intent to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes. 

2. Rejection of Heightened Scrutiny

Observers expect the Court may reject the ACLU’s argument for “heightened scrutiny,” instead applying a “rational basis” review. This lower legal standard would likely allow state bans to stand as long as states can provide a “rational” reason—such as competitive fairness—for the restrictions. 

3. Narrow Fact-Based Ruling vs. Broad Rule

The Court’s liberal wing suggested the possibility of a narrower ruling. 

Narrow Ruling: The Court could rule specifically on the individual circumstances of the plaintiffs (who have not undergone male puberty), rather than issuing a sweeping nationwide mandate.

Broad Ruling: Conversely, a broad ruling in favor of the states could validate similar bans in 27 states and provide a legal template for future restrictions on transgender rights in other areas, such as bathrooms or legal identification. 

4. Clarification of Title IX and Bostock

A key prediction is that the Court will clarify how the 2020 Bostock decision (protecting gender identity in employment) applies to education. Conservative justices signaled they may view “sex discrimination” differently in the context of athletics than in the workplace. 

Timeline for Decision

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its final decisions in both cases by early summer 2026.”

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PREDICTIONS

What are the implications of the predictions?

GoogleAI Mode: “If the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling aligns with the current predictions of the 6-3 conservative majority, the implications will reach far beyond school athletics.

1. Immediate Impact on State Laws

Validation of Existing Bans: A ruling for the states would immediately validate laws in 27 states that currently bar transgender women and girls from female sports.

National Expansion: Legal experts predict such a ruling would encourage the remaining states and the federal government to pass similar “Save Women’s Sports” acts, potentially creating a uniform national standard based on biological sex. 

2. Erosion of Civil Rights Protections

Redefining Title IX: The Court could rule that “sex discrimination” in Title IX does not include gender identity in the context of education and sports. This would effectively roll back federal protections for transgender students.

Heightened Scrutiny Denied: If the Court rejects “heightened scrutiny” for transgender individuals, it would be much harder for them to challenge future discriminatory laws in any sector. 

3. Expansion to Other Areas of Public Life

Legal analysts warn that a broad ruling could serve as a precedent for restrictions in several other domains: 

Restrooms and Locker Rooms: Schools and public facilities could legally mandate usage based on biological sex.

Identity Documents: The ruling could influence legal battles over sex designations on passports, driver’s licenses, and birth certificates.

Healthcare and Military Service: It could reinforce existing or future bans on gender-affirming care and transgender participation in the military. 

4. Social and Institutional Consequences

“Gender Policing” and Testing: Opponents argue that categorical bans necessitate “invasive sex verification” procedures for all female athletes, not just those who are transgender, to resolve eligibility disputes.

Institutional Alignment: The NCAA and U.S. Olympic Committee have already moved to align with current federal anti-trans policies; a Supreme Court victory for the states would likely solidify these restrictive internal regulations. 

A final decision is expected by early summer 2026.”

THE LIKELY CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

What are the likely constitutional violations?

GoogleAI Mode: “In the cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the primary constitutional and federal violations alleged by the challengers include:

1. Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment)

The core constitutional argument is that state bans violate the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person “the equal protection of the laws.” 

Discriminatory Classification: Challengers argue these laws create a discriminatory classification based on transgender status and sex.

Heightened Scrutiny: Attorneys contend that because transgender people are a “discrete minority” with a history of discrimination, the Court should apply “heightened scrutiny.” Under this standard, states must prove the ban is “substantially related” to an important government interest rather than relying on “overbroad generalizations” about the sexes.

Invasive Verification: The Ninth Circuit previously noted that Idaho’s law uniquely subjects female athletes—but not males—to “invasive sex verification procedures,” which itself constitutes sex-based discrimination. 

2. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

While Title IX is a federal statute rather than a constitutional provision, it is central to the legal challenge in the West Virginia case. 

Definition of “On the Basis of Sex”: Challengers argue that discriminating against a student for being transgender is inherently discrimination “on the basis of sex.” They point to the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision, which applied this logic to employment law.

Categorical Exclusion: The ACLU argues that categorical bans are “unfairly broad” because they exclude students who have never experienced male puberty and thus lack any physiological advantage associated with biological males. 

3. Privacy and Dignity Concerns

While not always framed as a standalone violation, the challengers argue the laws infringe upon the privacy and dignity of students by forcing them into teams that do not match their lived identity and requiring medical or physical “verification” of their biological sex. 

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority appeared skeptical of these arguments during the January 13, 2026, hearing, with several justices questioning if “sex” in Title IX was always intended to mean biological sex at birth.”

The Legal Tests the Justices Will Use to Make the Determination

GoogleAI Mode: “In the cases of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court is weighing which “tier of scrutiny” to apply to state bans on transgender athletes. These legal tests determine how much justification a state must provide for its laws to be considered constitutional. 

The three potential tests being debated are:

Rational Basis Review (The Lowest Standard):

The Test: The law must be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

The Impact: This is the most lenient test and usually leads to laws being upheld. States argue their bans meet this standard by citing “common sense” and the “legitimate” goal of protecting fairness in women’s sports.

Intermediate (Heightened) Scrutiny:

The Test: The government must show the law is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest.

The Impact: This standard is typically used for sex-based discrimination. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits applied this test when they blocked the bans, finding that categorical exclusions did not meet this higher bar.

Strict Scrutiny (The Highest Standard):

The Test: The law must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling” government interest.

The Impact: Laws analyzed under strict scrutiny are rarely upheld. The ACLU argues this test should apply because the bans target a “suspect class” (transgender people) and infringe on fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. 

The 2026 Arguments

During the January 13, 2026, hearing, conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch questioned whether transgender people should be considered a legally protected class at all, which would determine if the Court uses rational basis or a higher standard. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that applying a strict, fact-based test to individual student-athletes could create unmanageable administrative burdens for schools. 

A ruling that applies rational basis review would almost certainly result in the bans being upheld nationwide.”

APPLYING BOSTOCK

GoogleAI Mode: ” In the January 13, 2026, oral arguments for West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the landmark 2020 case Bostock v. Clayton County served as the primary battleground for interpreting Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. 

The Pro-Challenger Argument (ACLU & Student-Athletes)

The ACLU argued that Bostock established a definitive rule: it is impossible to discriminate against someone for being transgender without discriminating against them “on the basis of sex”. 

Direct Application: They contended that since Title IX uses nearly identical language to the statute in Bostock (Title VII), the Court must conclude that banning transgender girls from sports is a form of sex discrimination.

Strict Comparison: They argued that if a school allows a student assigned female at birth to play on a girls’ team but bars a student assigned male at birth who identifies as female, the only difference in treatment is the student’s biological sex, which violates the Bostock standard. 

The Pro-State Argument (Attorneys General & DOJ)

States and the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Bostock was a narrow ruling about employment (firing someone) and does not apply to sex-segregated spaces like athletics. 

Biological Distinction: They argued that while Bostock protects transgender people from being fired, it does not erase the legality of using biological sex to separate sports teams to ensure fairness and safety.

Title IX Intent: They contended that when Title IX was enacted in 1972, “sex” was understood exclusively as biological sex, and that Bostock should not be used to “redefine” that original meaning in an educational context. 

The Justices’ Reaction (2026 Hearing)

The conservative majority signaled they may be ready to limit the reach of the Bostock precedent:

Chief Justice John Roberts: He distinguished the cases, suggesting that while discrimination against transgender status is sex discrimination, a “sex-based classification” (like a girls’ sports team) is not necessarily a “transgender classification”.

Justice Neil Gorsuch: As the author of Bostock, Gorsuch appeared torn. He pushed back on the idea that transgender people aren’t a protected class, but also suggested that Title IX might have a different original meaning than Title VII because it was passed under the Constitution’s Spending Clause, requiring clear notice to states of what they are agreeing to. 

The Court is expected to decide by June 2026 whether Bostock’s logic applies to the locker room and the playing field.”

THE SPENDING CLAUSE CONNECTION

GoogleAI Mode: “Justice Neil Gorsuch’s questions during the January 13, 2026, arguments introduced the Spending Clause as a critical potential legal hurdle for the challengers, with significant implications for federal funding:

The “Clear Statement Rule”

The Argument: Legislation passed under the Spending Clause (like Title IX) functions like a contract: states agree to comply with federal conditions in exchange for funds. A “clear statement rule” requires Congress to be very clear about its requirements so states have proper “notice” of what they are agreeing to.

The Implication: Justice Gorsuch suggested that in 1972 (when Title IX was enacted), the term “sex” was universally understood to mean biological sex at birth, not gender identity. Therefore, states were never given clear notice that accepting federal education funds would require them to allow transgender women on female sports teams. 

Impact on Federal Funding

Legal Basis for Bans: If the Court agrees with this interpretation, it provides a powerful, independent reason (separate from the Equal Protection Clause debate) to uphold the state bans. The ruling could state that the federal government cannot force a definition of “sex” onto states that they did not agree to contractually in 1972.

Preventing Funding Strips: This argument could legally block efforts by future administrations (like the current Trump administration’s executive orders) to strip federal grants from schools that enforce the state-level bans. The Court would effectively be saying that the administration lacks the statutory authority under Title IX to impose conditions (trans-inclusion) that Congress never clearly defined or intended.

Ensuring State Autonomy: It reinforces the principle of federalism, giving states more autonomy to define their own policies regarding sex-segregated spaces without fear of losing essential federal education funds. 

This argument is a likely avenue for the conservative majority to rule in favor of the states while managing the precedent set by the 2020 Bostock decision on employment law. A final decision is expected by early summer 2026.”

CURRENT STATUS OF TITLE IX’S INTERPRETATION

What’s the current status of Title IX’s interpretation in schools?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 13, 2026, the interpretation of Title IX in schools is in a state of major transition, currently defined by a return to the 2020 Trump-era regulations and active litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

1. Current Regulatory Status

Reinstatement of 2020 Rule: Following a January 9, 2025, federal court order that vacated the Biden-era 2024 Title IX rules, the Department of Education (DOE) officially reverted to the 2020 Title IX regulations.

Narrow Definition of “Sex”: Under the current administration’s January 20, 2025, executive order, federal agencies are directed to interpret “sex” exclusively as biological sex assigned at birth. The DOE no longer interprets Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination as including gender identity or sexual orientation.

Enforcement Actions: The DOE has launched investigations into schools with “permissive” policies and reached settlements (e.g., with the University of Pennsylvania) to eliminate gender identity-based sports participation. 

2. Legislative and Executive Mandates

“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”: A February 2025 executive order interprets Title IX as explicitly prohibiting transgender women from participating in women’s sports and threatens to rescind federal funding from non-compliant schools.

House Amendment: In January 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to amend Title IX to define “sex” based solely on reproductive biology and genetics at birth. 

3. Judicial Conflict and Supreme Court Review

While the executive branch enforces a biological definition, the judiciary is currently split:

Appellate Rulings: The Fourth and Ninth Circuits previously held that state-level bans violate Title IX by discriminating against students on the basis of sex.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Today, January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. The conservative majority signaled they may uphold state restrictions, which would finalize a nationwide interpretation that Title IX permits (or even requires) sports to be separated by biological sex. 

Summary of the Landscape

Feature
Primary Regulation

Current Interpretation (Jan 2026)
2020 Title IX Rule

Feature 
Definition of “Sex”

Current Interpretation (Jan 2026)
Biological sex at birth

Feature
Transgender Inclusion

Current Interpretation (Jan 2026)
Excluded from gender-aligned sports and facilities by federal policy

Feature 
Pending Decision

Current Interpretation (Jan 2026)
Supreme Court ruling (expected by early summer 2026).”

STATES RESTRICTING TRANSGENDER ATHLETES

What are some examples of laws in the 27 states banning transgender athletes?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 13, 2026, 27 states have enacted laws that restrict transgender women and girls from participating in female sports. These laws generally require sports teams to be designated by biological sex rather than gender identity. 

Key Examples of State Laws

Idaho: Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (HB 500)
Enacted in 2020 as the first law of its kind, it mandates that all public school and university sports teams be designated by “biological sex”. If an athlete’s sex is disputed, the law allows for medical verification, which may include reproductive anatomy or genetic analysis.

West Virginia: Save Women’s Sports Act (HB 3293)
Passed in 2021, this law categorically bans transgender girls from female sports in public secondary schools and colleges. It is the subject of the landmark Supreme Court case West Virginia v. B.P.J..

Texas: Save Women’s Sports Act (HB 25 / SB 15)
Prohibits individuals assigned male at birth from participating in women’s sports at the K-12 level (HB 25) and was expanded in 2023 to include collegiate athletics (SB 15).

Florida: Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (SB 1028)
Signed in 2021, this law bans transgender students from female teams in secondary and higher education. It provides a legal path for cisgender athletes to sue if they feel their opportunities were harmed by non-compliant schools.

Ohio: Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act (HB 68)
Passed in early 2024 after a veto override, this law includes provisions that ban transgender girls and women from participating in female sports at both the K-12 and collegiate levels.

Arkansas: Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (SB 354)
Established in 2021, it draws heavily from Idaho’s law and applies to both public and private schools whose teams compete against public institutions. 

States with Similar Laws (as of 2026)

Other states with these restrictions include:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. These laws are currently the subject of national scrutiny as the Supreme Court determines their constitutionality following today’s oral arguments.”

WHAT’S NEXT

GoogleAI Mode: “Following the oral arguments on January 13, 2026, several critical milestones and potential developments are expected to shape the national landscape for transgender rights and school athletics:

1. Supreme Court Decision Timeline

Final Ruling: The Court is expected to issue its official decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox by late June or early July 2026.

Scope of the Ruling: The Court may issue a broad ruling affecting all 27 states with similar bans, or a narrow ruling limited to the specific circumstances of the two student-athletes involved. 

2. Federal Legislative and Regulatory Actions

Title IX Revisions: The Trump administration is expected to continue its efforts to finalize a new definition of “sex” under Title IX that explicitly excludes gender identity, potentially codifying these changes into federal regulation.

Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act: Legislation currently in the 119th Congress (H.R. 28) seeks to federally mandate that “sex” for athletic purposes be based solely on biological sex at birth. 

3. Impact on Remaining States

State-Level Contests: If the Court upholds the bans, Democratic-led states that currently protect transgender athletes may face fresh legal challenges from the administration or private groups seeking to enforce a uniform national standard.

Potential Funding Risks: Schools in states that do not comply with a potential pro-ban Supreme Court ruling may face immediate threats to their federal funding. 

4. Broader Legal Battles

Beyond Sports: The legal rationale used in this ruling will likely set the stage for upcoming Supreme Court battles over gender-neutral bathrooms, gender-affirming healthcare, and parental notification laws.”

A List of the Specific Federal Grants That the Department of Education Is Currently Threatening to Withhold

GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 13, 2026, the Department of Education (DOE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have identified several specific federal grant programs that are being threatened with withholding, suspension, or termination for states and school districts that maintain trans-inclusive policies.

1. Major K-12 and Higher Education Funding

The Trump administration has prioritized using the following major funding streams as leverage to ensure compliance with its biological sex-based interpretation of Title IX:

Title I Funding: This is the largest federal program for K-12 education, targeted at schools with high proportions of students from low-income families.

Magnet School Assistance Grants: The DOE has already moved to withhold over $65 million from magnet schools in major districts—including New York City, Chicago, and Fairfax, VA—due to their gender-inclusive facility and sports policies.

Federal Student Aid: Colleges and universities that do not align their athletic policies with biological sex risk their eligibility for federal student aid programs.

MSI (Minority Serving Institutions) Grants: The DOE has reprogrammed roughly $350 million in discretionary funds from programs that used what it deemed “discriminatory” eligibility criteria. 

2. Health and Family Assistance Grants (HHS)

On January 13, 2026, a coalition of 12 states sued HHS after it conditioned hundreds of billions of dollars in health and research funding on compliance with federal gender identity mandates. Impacted grants include: 

PREP (Personal Responsibility Education Program): HHS terminated California’s PREP grant and put 46 other states and territories on notice to remove “gender ideology” from their sex education materials or lose funding.

CCDF (Child Care and Development Fund): HHS recently froze nearly $2.4 billion in child care funds for five states, including California and New York.

TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families): Approximately $7.35 billion in family assistance funds has been frozen in five states due to compliance and “integrity” concerns.

NIH and Research Grants: HHS now requires recipients of discretionary grants to certify they are not promoting “gender ideology,” threatening life-saving medical and scientific research funding. 

3. Specialized Education Services

Free and Reduced Lunch Programs: These federal subsidies for K-12 schools have been explicitly named as at-risk if schools “invade locker rooms” by allowing access based on gender identity.

Special Education Services: Funding for students with disabilities is also under scrutiny for compliance with the administration’s Title IX interpretation. 

A final Supreme Court ruling this summer is expected to determine whether the federal government has the ultimate authority to permanently revoke these funds from states that refuse to implement sports and facility bans.”

THE 12 INCLUSIVE STATES

A List of the 12 States Currently Suing the Federal Government to Protect Their Access to Grants

GoogleAI Mode: “On January 13, 2026, a coalition of 12 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from withholding federal funding. 

The lawsuit specifically challenges new “Gender Conditions” that require grant recipients to certify compliance with a presidential executive order that defines “sex” as a biological binary. 

The 12 states (represented by their Attorneys General) participating in this coalition are:

New York (Co-lead)
California (Co-lead)
Rhode Island (Co-lead)
Oregon (Co-lead)
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
Vermont
Washington

Key Claims in the Lawsuit

Unlawful Conditions: The states argue HHS lacks the statutory authority to impose retroactive conditions on grants already approved by Congress.

Violation of Separation of Powers: They contend the executive branch is usurping Congress’s “power of the purse” by attaching new requirements to federal funds.

Conflict with State Laws: The coalition asserts these federal mandates force states to violate their own laws that protect transgender individuals from discrimination.

Financial Risk: The lawsuit seeks to protect over $300 billion in collective annual funding for hospitals, public health agencies, and research universities. 

This legal action was filed on the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding state bans on transgender athletes, highlighting the coordinated national push to redefine Title IX. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

APPLYING INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

If the Supreme Court decided Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. based on the Constitution and International Human Rights Law, what would be the outcome?

GoogleAI Mode: “If the Supreme Court were to decide Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. through the dual lenses of the U.S. Constitution and International Human Rights Law, the outcome would likely hinge on a clash between national sovereignty and global non-discrimination standards.

1. Outcome Under the U.S. Constitution

The current 6-3 conservative majority indicated during the January 13, 2026, hearing that it is likely to uphold the state bans.

Equal Protection Clause: The Court signaled that separating sports by biological sex is “rationally related” to the legitimate government interest of ensuring fairness for cisgender women.

Title IX: Justices suggested that the 1972 law was originally intended to protect biological females, and that categorical exclusions based on sex at birth do not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Sovereignty: The Court’s “originalist” approach generally prioritizes the text and history of the U.S. Constitution over international trends or treaties. 

2. Outcome Under International Human Rights Law

If the Court were to adopt international standards, it would likely reach the opposite conclusion and strike down the bans. 

Principle of Non-Discrimination: UN human rights experts have explicitly stated that “categorical exclusions of trans and intersex women from women’s sports is a prima facie violation of human rights obligations”.

Proportionality and Privacy: International law requires that any restriction on rights must be “proportionate” and “necessary.” International experts argue that blanket bans are disproportionate because they ignore individual medical facts, such as the use of puberty blockers.

Precedent (Semenya v. Switzerland): In 2025, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that athletes cannot be subjected to discriminatory eligibility rules without a fair hearing and rigorous scientific justification—a standard higher than the “rational basis” review likely to be used by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Summary of the Conflict

Legal Framework 
U.S. Constitution (2026 Interpretation)

Likely Decision
Uphold Bans

Reasoning
Focuses on biological sex as a valid classification for fairness and safety.

Legal Framework 
International Human Rights Law

Likely Decision
Strike Down Bans

Reasoning
Views categorical exclusion as a violation of the right to privacy and non-discrimination.

Final Status: Because the U.S. Supreme Court is not bound by international human rights rulings, the predicted outcome remains an upholding of the state bans, despite potential conflicts with global human rights norms.”