By Michael Phillips | People’s Law Review

On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases—West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox—that place the future of sex-segregated athletics under federal law squarely before the Court. At issue is whether state laws restricting participation in girls’ and women’s sports teams based on biological sex violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Although the cases have been framed in public discourse as cultural flashpoints, the legal questions before the Court are narrower and more consequential: Does Title IX permit states to classify athletic teams by biological sex, and if so, under what constitutional constraints?

The Statutory Question: What Does “Sex” Mean in Title IX?

Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded education programs, while expressly allowing separate athletic teams for males and females where selection is based on competitive skill or where a sport is a contact sport.

States defending their laws argue that Congress, in 1972, understood “sex” to mean biological sex and that sex-segregated athletics were not merely permitted but essential to Title IX’s remedial purpose—namely, expanding athletic opportunities for women and girls who had historically been excluded from competitive sports.

The challengers counter that modern interpretations of sex discrimination—drawing in part from Bostock v. Clayton County—require Title IX to encompass gender identity, rendering categorical exclusions of transgender athletes unlawful.

The Court must therefore decide whether Title IX’s allowance of sex-separated teams remains tethered to biological distinctions or whether it has evolved into a broader anti-classification regime.

Equal Protection and the Question of Scrutiny

Under Equal Protection doctrine, sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny, requiring an “exceedingly persuasive justification” and a substantial relationship between the classification and an important governmental objective.

The states argue that preserving competitive fairness, safety, and equal opportunity for female athletes satisfies this standard. They emphasize that the laws do not rest on animus, but on widely accepted physiological differences that directly affect athletic competition.

Challengers argue the laws are overinclusive and insufficiently tailored, particularly in non-contact sports or where transgender athletes have undergone hormone therapy. They contend that categorical bans fail to account for individual circumstances and therefore cannot meet constitutional scrutiny.

Procedural and Structural Implications

The Court also confronted procedural complications, particularly in Little v. Hecox, where the original plaintiff sought to withdraw from the case. Idaho has urged the Court to proceed, citing the need for definitive guidance for states, schools, and athletic associations.

Beyond the immediate parties, the cases implicate laws in approximately 27 states and raise broader questions about federalism, agency interpretation of Title IX, and the limits of judicial expansion of statutory terms absent congressional action.

Why the Outcome Matters

A ruling upholding the state laws would reaffirm the legality of sex-based athletic classifications under Title IX and clarify that such distinctions are compatible with Equal Protection principles. A ruling striking them down could require a fundamental reworking of school athletic programs nationwide and signal a broader shift in how sex-based distinctions are treated under federal law.

Notably, the Court could also issue a narrow decision, resolving the cases on procedural grounds or limiting its holding to K-12 or collegiate athletics specifically.

Conclusion

At its core, the Supreme Court is being asked not to resolve a cultural debate, but to interpret a statute enacted to remedy historical inequality and to determine whether constitutional doctrine permits legislatures to preserve sex-segregated sports in pursuit of that goal.

The decision—expected later in the 2026 term—will shape the future of Title IX, Equal Protection jurisprudence, and the structure of American athletics for decades to come.