Eden Kwan
On Jan. 13, the Supreme Court heard two arguments about the legality of transgender student-athletes participating in sports events consistent with their gender identity. The two cases were Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
In April 2020, transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox challenged Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, a ban on transgender women participating in women’s sports in public schools. Later, in August, a federal district court temporarily barred the state from enforcing the law, but in July 2024, Idaho filed for an appeal of the ruling at the Supreme Court.
In June 2021, transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson sued West Virginia for their Save Women’s Sports Act, which bars transgender women from participating on women’s sports teams from public secondary schools to college. The law was temporarily barred by U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, which allowed Pepper-Jackson to compete in middle school. But in January 2023, Goodwin reversed his decision, leading Pepper-Jackson to appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court. The court then overturned Goodwin’s ruling in April 2024, supporting transgender student-athletes. As a result, West Virginia petitioned the Supreme Court on the ruling in July 2024.
Both lawsuits argue that the states’ acts violate Title IX and tthe Constitution’s equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in educational systems that receive federal funding, while the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying people equal protection under the law and unjustly discriminating based on race, gender or other characteristics.
Alex Pate, an Aragon alumnus and transgender athlete who participated in water polo and swimming at
Aragon, believes the question of what defines fairness is important when considering the legality of the rulings.
“It breaks [Title IX and the equal protection clause] because it is basing rules and laws against gender identity,” Pate said. “They’re trying to create equality in sports [and] this [is a] big discussion of fairness and sports [but] sports are inherently unfair most of the time, so it’s hypocritical that they’re regulating [which] bodies play in sports.”
The Supreme Court ruling will likely impact similar state bans of transgender women in sports in 27 states. However, the Supreme Court most likely will not mandate a national ban. Currently, California law
mandates that public school allow transgender student-athletes to participate on teams consistent with their gender identity.
“The big part of [these state laws] is that it discourages trans people from playing sports,” Pate said. “[In California] we have a pretty good chance of that law not reaching us to [that] extent.”
In accordance with California law, the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports, allows athletes to compete in sports corresponding with their gender identity. In May 2025, in response to criticisms by President Donald Trump about a transgender student-athlete competing in the track and field championship meet, the CIF granted qualified additional cisgender females to the final for events with transgender girls. In addition, the CIF decided medals for cisgender female athletes would be separate from placement of transgender athletes.
While debates on whether to allow transgender student-athletes to participate in high school sports and in which category continue, the San Mateo Union High School District has not moved to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in teams that align with their gender identity.
“Transgender athletes deserve the opportunity to participate in high school athletics,” said Steve Sell, Aragon athletic director and member of the CIF Executive Committee. “When you weigh the amount of damage done to transgender kids when their gender identity is not respected versus the damage being done to cisgender kids having to compete with transgender kids, there’s absolutely no comparison. There would have to be a surge … [of] the percentage of transgender kids competing in California high school athletics. That’s how small the number of kids who are competing [is]. What’s really disappointing is the complete lack of empathy being shown for these kids going through the journey of being transgender.”
However, opposition towards transgender athletes participating with their gender identity remains strong across the U.S., with many concerned about competitive fairness and biological advantages. While transgender athletes are allowed to compete consistent with their gender in some states, they
are not in 27 states. They often argue that athletic divisions have always been based on biological sex instead of gender identity. Supporters of this viewpoint also emphasize the differences of muscle mass and strength in males and females. Idaho, for example, argues that “male athletes have numerous recognized physical and physiological advantages over females that begin before puberty and persist despite circulating testosterone,” highlighting the need to preserve fairness in women’s sports. Another perspective suggests that by allowing transgender athletes to compete on their desired teams, it will significantly change the structure of women’s sports as it is today as it challenges the current meaning of competitive fairness.
“Sports wise, it can sometimes be unfair [for transgender athletes to participate in sports based on their gender], especially [regarding] physical abilities,” said sophomore Avery Kim. “For sports that are really physical, there’s a reason why [they] have different brackets for men and women, and if someone is trans and competing have different brackets for men and women, and if someone is trans and competing as a woman, it can be physically unfair to those who have worked hard to be high in their bracket as a girl.”
The Trump administration has taken a clear stance on transgender athletes in sports and gender-affirming health care. Since his return as president, Trump has signed numerous executive orders to restrict transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports, arguing that it is to protect the rights of cisgender female athletes. One of the executive orders, called “Keep Men out of Women’s Sports,” reinforces the definition of “sex” in Title IX as sex assigned at birth and not gender identity. In addition, the administration also cut off and limited health care funding for gender-affirming care which supports a person’s gender identity.
Discussions about transgender athlete participation involve the role of hormones, such as estrogen for transgender women, and other gender-affirming care. Some researchers have evidence that estrogen could reduce or potentially eliminate the advantage that biological males may have above females. Supporters of gender-affirming care believe that regulating the hormone levels of transgender athletes is a better solution than bans.
However, some still argue that the solution varies depending on the sport, emphasizing the complexity of creating rules that include fairness, inclusion and competitive equality.
Pate played on the girls water polo and swimming teams for his entire high school career.
“It’s really heavy when you’re on the opposite team that you want to be [part of],” Pate said. “I felt alone. [I didn’t change teams because] I was socially transitioning a little bit every year [and] I wasn’t on hormones … I love this sport so much. I didn’t want to go through the steps. I was scared. I had great moments, I had good friends.”
Having heard arguments for the two cases in January, the Supreme Court’s decision will arrive in late June or early July. The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, so experts expect them to maintain the bans set by the states. Because the decision is not likely to uphold a federal ban, California will not be directly affected given that state law requires public schools to allow students to partake in sports based on their gender identity.
