Tracking trans rights at the Supreme Court in 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering three cases this term that could impact the national landscape of trans rights. As part of our ongoing work to promote accurate, nuanced coverage of trans communities, TJA offers the following information to assist reporters and newsrooms preparing to cover these developments.
What issues are being considered?
In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court will decide whether a Colorado law banning anti-LGBTQ “conversion therapy” violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
In West Virginia v. BPJ, the Court will decide whether a West Virginia law banning trans girls from girls’ sports teams violates Title IX and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Little v. Hecox, the Court may decide whether an Idaho law banning trans women and girls from women’s sports teams violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
When will these cases be decided?
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. Arguments in West Virginia v. BPJ will be heard some time after November 12. Most court opinions will be issued in the spring and summer of 2026 — typically, cases that involve more complicated legal questions or more disagreement between Justices take longer to decide.
In Little v. Hecox, the student challenging the law has decided to withdraw her case and stop playing club sports, partly due to “negative public scrutiny” that she feels “will distract her from her schoolwork and prevent her from meeting her academic and personal goals.” This means that the Supreme Court may order the case to be dismissed on procedural grounds, without ruling on the legality of Idaho’s sports ban. The court will make a decision about this procedural issue some time after September 26.
Case background
Conversion therapy
In the U.S., 23 states and Washington, D.C. currently ban the use of anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy against minors. Colorado officials passed such a law in 2019, banning licensed mental health providers from “any practice or treatment … that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
At the international level, a 2020 UN report called for a global ban on conversion therapy, noting that such practices are “inherently discriminatory … and that depending on the severity or physical or mental pain and suffering inflicted to the victim, they may amount to torture.” Multiple EU countries — including Germany, France, Greece, and Spain — already have nationwide bans.
Major medical groups like the World Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have concluded that there is no scientific or medical basis for so-called “conversion therapy.” It’s medically inaccurate to call these practices “therapy” at all, since that term usually refers to evidence-based treatment. Doctors often refer to them instead as “sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts.”
The plaintiff challenging Colorado’s law is a Christian counselor named Kaley Chiles. She’s represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is designated by the SPLC as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. Chiles argues that Colorado’s law violates her freedom of speech. President Trump’s administration, as well as Republican legislators from 30 states and Attorneys General from 19 states, have expressed support for Chiles’ position.
A key issue in this case is whether therapists’ discussions with patients should be legally classified as “speech” or as “conduct.” Chiles argues that they should be considered speech, in part because “[t]he only tool she uses is speech.” The Tenth Circuit held that Colorado’s law is “a regulation of professional conduct incidentally involving speech,” and therefore subject to a lower standard of legal review.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also classified therapeutic conversations as “conduct,” while the Third and Eleventh Circuits have treated them as “speech.” The Supreme Court’s ruling will attempt to resolve this discrepancy.
Trans student athlete bans
In recent years, the ability of trans young people to participate on sports teams has become an increasingly politicized issue. Currently, 27 states ban at least some trans athletes from playing on teams that differ from their assigned sex at birth.
In West Virginia v. BPJ, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the state’s sports ban couldn’t be enforced as currently written. The court held that the law violates Title IX, and possibly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. West Virginia officials have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider this, which could have immediate impacts for trans kids in the state who are currently allowed to play.
In Arizona and Idaho, courts paused full enforcement of the states’ sports bans while legal challenges against them proceeded. Both of those state governments appealed. In both cases, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the young people challenging the law should be allowed to play on sports teams with other kids of the same gender, while their lawsuit was ongoing.
The basis of those rulings was a judgment that the sports bans “likely” could be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Arizona and Idaho have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider that assessment. The court may look at Idaho’s law, or it may order the case to be dismissed on procedural grounds without ruling on the law itself. The court has not yet decided if it will consider Arizona’s law.
Proponents of trans sports bans sometimes claim a scientific basis for these laws, but in reality, there’s very little research comparing the performance of cisgender and transgender athletes. There’s been some research on the impact of testosterone on athletic performance, but even this has found a variety of different results depending on the type of physical activity involved. There’s extensive evidence that low-stakes sports participation is good for kids’ health, and absolutely no evidence that trans athletes present any harm to cisgender athletes. Research in fact suggests that when trans athletes are allowed to play, more cisgender girls end up playing, too.
Reporters should keep in mind that 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. In your reporting, you should make sure to speak to athletes who are impacted by the law itself.
For more information on accurate coverage of sports-related policies, see the sports subsection of TJA’s style guide and the Transgender Law Center’s guide to Reporting on Trans Youth and Sports.
