What SCOTUS decision on girls’ sports might mean for NC

The US Supreme Court appears poised to uphold state laws that bar transgender women and girls from competing on female school sports teams. The Court heard oral arguments on Jan. 13, 2026, in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The cases come from Idaho and West Virginia, both of which enacted laws defining eligibility for girls’ and women’s sports based on biological sex rather than gender identity.

During more than three hours of oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed skeptical of the challenges to these laws and more receptive to the states’ position. While the Court has not yet issued a decision and is unlikely to do so for several months, the questioning suggested that most justices believe states have the authority to draw sex-based lines in athletics to protect fairness and safety in competition. At the same time, some justices appeared cautious about issuing an overly broad ruling that would impose a nationwide standard, hinting instead at a narrower decision that leaves room for state discretion.

The two cases reached the Supreme Court after lower federal courts blocked enforcement of the state laws. In the Idaho case, a federal appeals court ruled that the ban likely violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. In the West Virginia case, another appeals court held that the law conflicted with Title IX, the federal statute that prohibits sex discrimination in education. Both states asked the Supreme Court to reverse those rulings, arguing that neither the Constitution nor federal law requires schools to allow transgender athletes to compete on teams designated for the opposite biological sex.

Several justices pressed lawyers challenging the bans to explain how existing federal law compels states to treat gender identity the same as biological sex in sports. There was notable skepticism toward the argument that Title IX, a decades-old law designed to expand athletic opportunities for women, was meant to eliminate sex-based distinctions in competitive athletics. Some justices also questioned whether courts, rather than state legislatures, should be making policy judgments in an area involving complex questions of biology, fairness, and youth sports.

If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the Idaho and West Virginia laws, the decision would have direct relevance for North Carolina, which has already taken steps to define eligibility for school sports based on biological sex. In 2023, North Carolina enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, over then-Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto, requiring that participation on middle school, high school, and collegiate athletic teams be determined by sex at birth, with separate teams designated for males and females (expressly co-ed).

A ruling favoring the states would signal that state legislatures, not federal agencies or courts, have the authority to set rules for school athletics, even when those rules draw distinctions based on biological sex. That matters because most of the legal criticism of such law rests on the same arguments raised in the Idaho and West Virginia cases: that sex-based sports categories violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. If the Supreme Court rejects those arguments, challenges to laws like those at issue in these cases would become much harder to sustain.

Such a decision could also limit the power of federal regulators to impose new interpretations of Title IX on states. In recent years, federal agencies and progressive activists have argued that Title IX requires schools to treat gender identity the same as sex in athletics. The Supreme Court’s skepticism toward that view suggests it is unlikely to allow administrative agencies to rewrite the meaning of a statute passed decades ago without clear direction from Congress. That would mean fewer mandates coming from Washington and more room for state-level decision-making.

Rather than navigating shifting federal guidance and fear of litigation, North Carolina would be able to rely on state law when organizing teams and competitions. That kind of predictability is especially important in youth sports, where rules need to be clear, consistent, and enforceable.

Even if the Court issues a narrow ruling, the overall message is likely to favor state autonomy. North Carolina would remain free to maintain its current law, amend it through the legislative process, or revisit it based on the preferences of voters and lawmakers — not under pressure from sweeping judicial mandates. In that sense, the case is not just about sports policy, but about who gets to decide difficult social questions in a federal system.

A final ruling is expected later this term, likely in early summer. Whatever the precise scope of the decision, the arguments strongly suggest that the Supreme Court is unlikely to strike down these laws wholesale and that states will retain broad authority to regulate school sports based on biological sex.

“What SCOTUS decision on girls’ sports might mean for NC” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.