The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a closely watched legal dispute over transgender athletes in public schools, with oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday. The issue has fueled debate in nearly 30 states with similar laws, as courts and communities grapple with how to balance competitive fairness in sports with protections under federal law, including Title IX.
The justices will consider two cases from Idaho and West Virginia challenging state laws that prohibit transgender and nonbinary students from competing on female-only sports teams in public schools and colleges. Lower courts have previously blocked those laws from taking effect.
Idaho was the first state to enact a law restricting transgender students from participating on girls’ sports teams, passing the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020. West Virginia followed in 2021 with its Save Women’s Sports Act. In 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked enforcement of West Virginia’s law while legal challenges continued.
The lawsuits were brought by Lindsay Hecox in Idaho and Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia. Hecox, a 24-year-old senior at Boise State University, has moved to dismiss her case as she approaches graduation in spring 2026 and no longer plans to compete in women’s sports in Idaho. Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old who has identified as female since third grade, is continuing her legal challenge and has sought to compete on girls’ teams, placing third in the discus and eighth in the shot put at a state track meet.
Both students have faced harassment related to their cases. In West Virginia, two students alleged that Pepper-Jackson harassed them while seeking to participate in girls’ sports, a report said.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by late June 2026, could have implications beyond school athletics, potentially influencing policies affecting LGBTQ+ rights in workplaces, public accommodations, and access to government benefits. The Justice Department under the Trump administration supports the state laws and is expected to argue their broader federal implications during the hearing.
“States like Idaho and West Virginia, along with supporting groups, insist these laws protect student safety and maintain a level playing field, citing physical differences between males and females as justification. Idaho’s women and girls deserve an equal playing field. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports,” said Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador.
The Supreme Court’s recent rulings on transgender rights have produced mixed outcomes, including a 2020 decision extending workplace protections to gay and transgender employees under federal law and a 2025 ruling upholding a Tennessee law limiting medical treatments for transgender minors.
Legal analysts say the court may take a narrow approach in the current cases, potentially leaving broader policy decisions to state legislatures and Congress.
Last week, meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two veterans who argued that their disability claims were unjustly denied, even though the evidence in their cases was equitably balanced.
The court, in a 7-2 ruling, determined that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not required to examine the Department of Veterans Affairs’ implementation of the “benefit-of-the-doubt” principle in the majority of instances. The regulation mandates that the VA must endorse a veteran’s claim when the evidence supporting and opposing approval is approximately balanced.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the Veterans Claims Court and the Federal Circuit were not legally required to apply a benefit-of-the-doubt analysis in the cases, which the lower courts had upheld.
Thomas stated in his ruling that the claims court was obligated solely to scrutinize the cases for any errors committed by the claims adjudicators or the Board of Veterans Appeals.
“We assert that the Veterans Court must evaluate the VA’s application of the rule in the same manner as any other determination—by examining legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error,” Thomas wrote.
