The Supreme Court’s recent ruling reshaped the legal backdrop for transgender athletes in women’s sports and left state policies in flux. Twenty-three states currently have no explicit bans on biological males competing in girls’ sports, and 19 of those states have laws or association rules that allow transgender student-athletes to participate consistent with their gender identity.
What the Supreme Court ruling changed for transgender athletes in women’s sports
The high court’s decision effectively affirmed the enforceability of bans in many states while signaling that states without bans may continue to implement inclusive policies. That split leaves schools, leagues and state education agencies operating under a mix of state statutes, association bylaws and pending litigation instead of a single national rule.
Practically, the ruling narrowed some uncertainty about immediate federal intervention but did not resolve active challenges in lower courts or stop new suits from being filed. Local athletic directors and state associations must now weigh whether to maintain existing eligibility rules, adopt interim guidance or wait for further court rulings.
Which states allow transgender athletes in girls’ sports — a focused map
Of the 23 states without explicit bans, 19 have laws, agency guidance or association standards that permit participation consistent with gender identity. Below are state-specific examples that illustrate how policies differ on the ground.
- California — State law and guidance protect transgender students’ rights to compete consistent with gender identity (commonly discussed in connection with AB 1266 and subsequent administrative guidance). Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office has said the Supreme Court ruling “does not affect California’s laws,” and the state continues to defend its existing protections in court.
- Illinois — The Illinois High School Association (IHSA) and state education officials allow transgender students to compete consistent with their gender identity through documentation processes routed by schools. Gov. J.B. Pritzker has publicly defended inclusive policies and criticized efforts to restrict participation.
- Nevada — Nevada currently lacks a statewide ban; however, Gov. Joe Lombardo has said he will press the Legislature to consider changes in 2027, framing the court decision as a prompt for lawmakers to act on statewide rules.
- Minnesota — The Minnesota State High School League reviews eligibility on a case-by-case basis and has been at the center of litigation and public debate after high-profile competitions prompted federal scrutiny. State agencies in Minnesota have been named in DOJ filings tied to those disputes.
- Colorado — Colorado law now protects transgender students’ participation consistent with gender identity, but voters will see a 2026 ballot measure that could require teams to be organized by biological sex, potentially reversing current practice if approved.
Other states in the 19 that permit participation do so through a mix of statutes and association rules — for example, New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts and Connecticut rely on either explicit protections or bylaws set by their athletic associations. Several states use agency guidance rather than legislative language to set eligibility standards.
How governors and state athletic associations are responding
Official responses range from firm defense of inclusive laws to pledges to pursue new restrictions. California’s administration has emphasized continuity, saying state protections remain in force. In Illinois, Gov. Pritzker used social media to denounce efforts to limit participation. Nevada’s governor has publicly encouraged legislative action in the next session.
“The Supreme Court’s decision does not affect California’s laws. The state remains committed to ensuring every Californian, including the LGBTQ community, is met with dignity and respect,” a Newsom spokesperson said.
“Going after LGBTQ+ kids isn’t leadership — it’s bullying… To those in the LGBTQ+ community, know that there’s a place for you in Illinois,” Gov. J.B. Pritzker posted.
Athletic associations are split as well: some have clear, written inclusion policies deferring to gender identity; others assess eligibility individually; a minority have moved to rewrite rules to reference biological sex. That variation means athletes’ access can differ widely by school district and league.
Ongoing Department of Justice lawsuits and legal risks
The Department of Justice has filed lawsuits and complaints involving state education agencies and policies in multiple states, including actions naming California, Minnesota and Maine in reporting on the issue. Those suits raise questions about federal statutes, whether certain state policies violate federal civil-rights laws, and how Title IX may be interpreted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Because DOJ litigation is active and appeals are likely, judges in district and appellate courts will play a central role in determining how state and association policies are applied. Schools and associations named in lawsuits face both legal and reputational risk as courts resolve whether agency-level rules must change.
What comes next for students, schools and voters
Expect a mix of litigation, legislative sessions and ballot fights over the next 12–36 months. Near-term items to watch include Colorado’s November 2026 ballot measure that could redefine team composition by biological sex and Nevada’s possible 2027 legislative push prompted by the governor. Lawmakers in other states may introduce measures during regular sessions or on special calendars.
For schools, practical next steps include reviewing district and association eligibility policies, preparing interim guidance that prioritizes student safety and fairness, consulting legal counsel before changing rules, and communicating clearly with families. Voters and local districts should expect advocacy campaigns, informational materials and possible local board decisions as courts clarify the legal landscape.
Source attribution and reporting notes
This analysis is based on reporting by Fox News Digital and public statements from governors’ offices and state athletic associations. The story references active Department of Justice litigation against several states and agency actions named in reporting. Multiple governors’ offices and some associations did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication.
For the original reporting: Fox News Digital — The states that still allow trans athletes in women’s sports face questions after Supreme Court ruling.
FAQ
Which states currently allow transgender athletes in girls’ sports?
Twenty-three states lack explicit bans; 19 of those have laws, association rules or agency guidance that permit transgender students to compete consistent with their gender identity. Examples with protective policies include California, Illinois, Colorado (subject to a potential 2026 ballot change) and several New England states.
Will the Supreme Court ruling force a change in state policies?
Not uniformly. The ruling reinforced the legal standing of existing bans in many states but did not erase the authority of states that have chosen inclusive policies. Ongoing DOJ lawsuits and state-level legislative or ballot actions will drive specific changes.
What major lawsuits are ongoing over transgender athlete participation?
The Department of Justice has filed suits and complaints naming state agencies in several states, including filings reported against California, Minnesota and Maine. Those cases — along with private litigation tied to championship results — are likely to shape how eligibility rules are enforced.
