Maxine Waters Refuses To Back Age Limits For Congress In Capitol Exchange

The Trump administration supported the states and implemented policies and executive orders asserting that federal protections recognize only biological sex at birth

During oral arguments in January 2026, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority signaled skepticism toward the athletes’ challenges.

Justices raised concerns about imposing a uniform national mandate amid continuous debate over whether hormone therapies eliminate physiological advantages.

Legal experts tracking the case via SCOTUSblog note that the court may issue a narrow ruling focusing strictly on sports categories under Title IX, or a broader ruling defining “sex” across federal civil rights laws

In January when the case was argued, SCOTUSBlog reported that the high court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender women and girls from participating on female school sports teams.

Following nearly three-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in a pair of cases from Idaho and West Virginia, several justices indicated they were receptive to the states’ position that the laws are constitutional.

While a majority appeared likely to side with the states, it remained unclear how broadly the court’s eventual ruling would apply, the outlet reported

The court’s three liberal justices also appeared to acknowledge the legal challenges facing those contesting the laws.

During the arguments, they focused much of their questioning on narrowing the scope of any ruling or resolving one of the cases on procedural grounds rather than issuing a sweeping constitutional decision.

Idaho adopted its law in 2020, followed by West Virginia in 2021

The Idaho case was brought by Hecox, a 24-year-old transgender woman who challenged the state’s law after seeking to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University.

Although Hecox did not make either varsity team, she later played club sports.