Covering the Supreme Court's ruling on trans athletes

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox that states can restrict athletes’ participation on sports teams based on “biological sex.” The court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prevent states from doing so. This means that trans women and girls can legally be banned from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identities.

As part of our ongoing work to promote accurate, nuanced coverage of trans communities, TJA offers the following information and considerations to assist reporters and newsrooms covering these developments.

Table of Contents

• What this ruling does
• What this ruling doesn't do
• How we got here
• Reporting considerations

What this ruling does:

The Supreme Court decided that schools “may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females” and “may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.”

In practice, this means that three states where trans girls were previously allowed to compete — Idaho, West Virginia, and Arizona — can now ban them from girls’ sports. As with most Supreme Court decisions, the ruling will have future impacts on the way lower courts handle this issue. It likely will be harder for trans student athletes to legally challenge these bans in the other 24 states that currently have them.

What this ruling doesn’t do: 

The ruling does not require that all states ban trans students from competition in federally funded programs. It allows state officials to make their own decisions about whether or not to restrict trans athletes’ participation. In addition, the court wrote, “nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to address or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.”

How we got here: 

In 1972, Congress enacted Title IX, which required federally-funded education programs not to exclude anyone from opportunities “on the basis of sex.” After Title IX became law, schools that receive public funds greatly expanded their athletic offerings for women and girls, including creating many new women’s teams in sports that had previously only allowed men to play.

More recently, the ability of trans young people to play on sports teams has become an increasingly politicized issue. In the U.S., 27 states currently have laws restricting at least some trans athletes’ participation. Both trans youth who want to compete, and legal opponents, have argued that Title IX supports their positions.

Two appeals courts — the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit — had found that statewide trans athletic bans were, or were likely to be, unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed both of those rulings.

Reporting considerations:

In addition to the recommendations available via our Stylebook and Coverage Guide, the below guidance aims to foster rigorous reporting on trans communities.

• Identify who these policies really impact. While the rhetoric around sports bans often targets trans women and girls, other athletes can also be impacted by these laws. For example, Idaho’s law includes a provision that any girl can be subject to a gynecological exam before being allowed to compete. Some states’ laws also include language that applies to trans boys and men, even though the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that Tuesday’s ruling doesn’t impact them. It’s important to consider both who lawmakers are trying to keep out of sports, as well as who is actually kept out of competition.
• “Biological sex” doesn’t have a singular meaning. The recent Supreme Court ruling relied heavily on the terms “biological sex” and “biological female.” Both are ambiguous terms without universally agreed-upon scientific definitions — there’s no single, measurable trait that tells you someone’s biological sex. State laws about “biological sex” contradict each other, and often reference chromosomes, genitalia, or the sex assigned at birth, rather than hormone levels. See our previous guidance for more info: Why “biological sex” may not mean what you think. 
• Avoid sweeping statements about “athletic advantage” or “fairness.” In the context of competitive elite sport, there’s ongoing scientific and medical discourse over the importance of various sex-linked traits. Most of the research so far has focused on testosterone levels. Very little research has focused on other factors such as chromosomes or whether someone has experienced a testosterone-driven puberty. In addition, conversations about “fairness” often ignore trans and intersex athletes, as well as anyone whose body could be considered non-normative by a sports official.

Stay in touch

👀 Want to read more? View past newsletters
✉️ Want to partner with us? Get in touch
💼 Hiring? Post your job on our jobs board or email our listserv
📣 Want to promote a job, event, or awards? Check our rates