On a clear January day, athlete Riley Gaines stood before a divided assembly on the steps of the Supreme Court. Her supporters, primarily women, offered applause, while a group of transgender rights activists to their left protested loudly, some in costumes and others partially clothed, with shouts and obscenities.
Gaines reflected on the scene, noting the contrasting atmospheres. "On our side... you saw people smiling and embracing and hugging each other... but you look across the bike racks that were there separating us, and you saw anger, and you saw negativity, and you saw screaming, and you saw vitriol, and you saw colored hair, and you saw colored hair, and you saw piercings, and you saw what I would describe, honestly, just visually looking at it, was island of the misfit toys. Not to be like, mean, but just speaking pretty objectively here."
Nearly six months later, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold state laws that prohibit transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports. For Gaines and advocates of "Save Women's Sports," the rally and its hostile reception became a pivotal moment in their successful campaign.
Early Legal Challenges in Idaho
The origins of this legal journey date back six years before Gaines' appearance at the court, and nearly three years prior to her well-publicized tie with Lia Thomas. In 2019, Idaho State cross-country runner Mary Kate Marshall and her teammate Madison Kenyon competed against a biological male from the University of Montana. The following year, they joined a lawsuit that would eventually reach the Supreme Court.
In 2020, the discussion surrounding transgender athletes in women's sports had not yet reached its current level of national prominence. Support systems for athletes like Marshall were less established. Despite this, Marshall took a significant step, becoming a voluntary defendant in a lawsuit against her own state. This legal challenge, initiated by former Boise State transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox, aimed to block Idaho's law designed to prevent biological males from competing in women's sports.
"Seeing that no parents were standing up, no coaches were saying anything, like, we knew we had to," Marshall stated. Joined by Kenyon, they endured multiple courtroom setbacks over several years, while also navigating the intense political climate that Gaines and other activists would later face.
"It was difficult at first because we were afraid of some of the backlash that we might get, but we had to do the right thing," Marshall explained, describing how interactions with close associates became "scary." She noted, "Teammates that we had on the team just disappointed in us for putting our school's name out there... We had some teammates who were just afraid, um, afraid of going against the norm, and at the time, back in 2020, there, this wasn't talked about a lot. So people were just scared about what would come of it or getting in trouble."
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, who at the time served as legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), emphasized the critical role of Marshall and Kenyon's decision to join the lawsuit. "Their courage and their conviction and their ability and desire to make very unpopular decisions at the time, and to make public stances that jeopardize, you know, their friendships, their ability to participate in sports, maybe in some cases even their abilities to be on the team... their fight was important."
The West Virginia Precedent
In 2021, a similar legal challenge emerged in West Virginia when a transgender student, then a minor, filed a lawsuit after being informed, before sixth grade, that she could not compete on girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams.
The West Virginia case diverged from Idaho’s primarily because it originated with a middle schooler, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), rather than a college athlete. The ACLU contended that West Virginia’s law constituted a blanket prohibition, asserting that the athlete had received medication since the onset of puberty and had not undergone the physiological changes associated with male puberty.
Initially, the courts allowed the student to compete. The district court first blocked enforcement of the law, and the Fourth Circuit later ruled against West Virginia on the Title IX claim, while sending the Equal Protection issue back for further factual investigation. This meant the athlete continued competing in girls’ sports throughout the Supreme Court litigation.
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey described this period as the most challenging aspect. "There’s nothing you can do when the Fourth Circuit enjoins your law to overcome that until the Supreme Court decides what the Fourth Circuit did was wrong. And so there was this, what I knew to be an injustice happening in real time, and my hands were really tied."
Allegations and Broader Stakes
The West Virginia narrative soon encompassed more than just athletic performance. Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for ADF, highlighted the alleged experience of another athlete, Adaleia Cross, as evidence of the human toll of the legal dispute. Campbell stated, "Across the country, girls have been losing medals, roster spots, titles, opportunities, and privacy. Consider our client, Adaleia Cross, who’s in the State of West Virginia. Not only did the plaintiff in the West Virginia case take her spot in a championship meet, that same plaintiff also sexually harassed her in the locker room, and she had to leave the sport that she loved as a result."
The ACLU, representing the transgender athlete and her mother, denied these allegations, stating that the school district investigated the claim and found it unsubstantiated. ADF, representing Cross, maintained that Cross had provided sworn testimony regarding the alleged incident and asserted that she "had to step away from the sport she loved entirely" because of it.
Although the harassment allegation was not directly part of the Supreme Court case, McCuskey noted its significant impact on how many West Virginians perceived the broader implications. "I think it is astronomically important that in the wake of this decision we make sure that we’re providing every single child a safe and fair place to play sports," McCuskey emphasized. "And if you’re a biological woman, that means not competing against biological men."
While the Supreme Court considered the case over six months, the West Virginia athlete continued to compete, ultimately winning a girls' state championship. In May, weeks before the ruling, the athlete secured the West Virginia Class AAA girls’ shot put state championship with a throw of 38 feet, 11¾ inches, surpassing the runner-up by over two feet. The athlete also placed fourth in girls’ discus. The Supreme Court’s opinion specifically acknowledged the athlete’s state shot put title and regional championships in both shot put and discus during the legal proceedings.
Despite the ruling arriving after the girls’ track season concluded, McCuskey expressed optimism for the future. "I think it’s most important to look at this going forward and to say it isn’t going to happen again," he said. "I think what we will see is that everyone will understand looking back on this that, that the time in which before this decision came down, that there was astronomical irrationality happening throughout the country, and that we finally came to a place of common sense."
The Court's Deliberation and Ruling
That "place of common sense" was outlined in a 77-page decision issued on Tuesday. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the six conservative justices in the majority opinion, began not with the transgender athletes who initiated the lawsuits, but with Title IX itself. This 1972 law, which supporters of state bans have long argued was being misapplied, was credited by Kavanaugh with fostering the modern era of girls’ and women’s athletics. "Title IX transformed American sports and American life," he wrote.
The court determined that Title IX does not mandate schools to permit biological males to compete on girls’ and women’s teams. Instead, it held that schools are permitted to separate teams based on biological sex, and that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution by implementing such policies. The majority opinion distinguished sports from other school environments, citing the competitive stakes involved in roster selections, medal awards, and scholarship opportunities. "Sports are generally zero sum," Kavanaugh stated.
For the women who had shared their experiences over several years, this particular statement resonated as validation. "The decision really is astounding," remarked Campbell. "It’s very clear on issues like what Title IX means. It’s very clear on issues like whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from protecting women’s sports." He added, "Across the board, the court ruled in favor of women and girls, recognizing that they deserve equal opportunities, that they deserve podium spots, that they deserve scholarships, and that they do not need to step aside and allow males to compete against them."
Distinguishing the Legal Arguments
The Supreme Court’s ruling was delivered in two parts. On the Title IX aspect, even the three liberal justices concurred that the West Virginia student’s claim failed, although they raised objections to certain elements of the majority’s reasoning. Regarding the constitutional question, the court divided 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson arguing the case should have been remanded to lower courts for further factual investigation.
Campbell underscored the importance of this distinction. "The justices that dissented only did so on the constitutional question," he explained. "It’s really important to recognize that every single justice on the Supreme Court recognized that Title IX allows states to protect women’s sports." He reiterated, "So on that Title IX issue, the court was unanimous. On the equal protection issue, the majority of the court said that the 14th Amendment allows states to protect women’s sports."
Justice Sotomayor, in her dissenting opinion, contended that the majority had acted too hastily. She asserted that unresolved factual questions concerning the West Virginia athlete’s medical history and athletic advantages should have precluded the court from dismissing the equal protection claim, accusing the majority of resolving a contentious issue "without knowing all the facts."
McCuskey countered that this argument overlooked the female athletes on the opposing side of the case. "The biggest frustration that I have, just in general, is this idea that there is no victim on the other side of these cases," McCuskey said. "The sort of understating the arguments being made by the biological women and girls on our side of this case… undercuts what are the true reasons why competitive sports are so important to women and girls." He emphasized, "It is an avenue for them to achieve incredible greatness in their lives."
For Labrador, the Supreme Court’s decision brought closure to a cycle that began before his tenure as attorney general. In 2020, when Idaho became the first state to enact a law safeguarding girls’ sports, Labrador recalled the intense pressure faced by the state. The NCAA had threatened repercussions, and Idaho’s former attorney general had cautioned about the law’s potential unconstitutionality. Labrador, then operating outside the attorney general’s office, joined ADF as local counsel for the female athletes involved in the case, describing the issue as personal.
"I have a daughter who played volleyball in high school," Labrador shared. "Every time I think about this case, I think about how significant that moment in her life was, how important playing sports was for her." He suggested, "If there would have been several male athletes ahead of her, I’m not sure that she would have made the varsity team."
Looking Beyond the Verdict
However, for the activists who transformed this obscure legal dispute into a national cause, the ruling does not signify an endpoint. Gaines expressed a mix of excitement and weariness. "I feel excited, of course. This is long awaited. It’s long overdue," Gaines stated. "It feels kind of like the culmination of everything that I have found myself fighting for over the past few years." Yet, she added, "But there is a level of me that’s exhausted as well. It’s exhausting that in the year 2026, we are still having this conversation, that the highest court in the land is having to rule on such insanity."
Gaines suggested that merely a decade ago, such a ruling would have been considered self-evident. "We wouldn’t have necessarily celebrated this ruling," she reflected. "We would have kind of been like, ‘Yeah, duh. This is, like, the default.’"
Jennifer Sey, a former U.S. national gymnastics champion and founder of XX-XY Athletics, echoed this sentiment, calling the ruling a significant victory but not the ultimate one. Sey highlighted that 23 states still lack laws protecting girls’ sports, leaving female athletes in those areas vulnerable. "Girls in every ZIP code deserve fair sports," Sey asserted. "My daughter is nine, and we live in Colorado. That is a blue state that does not have a law on the books protecting women’s sports. Hopefully, it will soon."
Sey mentioned she is chairing a Colorado ballot initiative anticipated to be presented to voters in November, but she stressed that the broader struggle is cultural, not solely legal. "It should be absolutely unacceptable to every human, every parent, that a boy would be fielded in a girls’ category," Sey declared. "When that becomes culturally unacceptable, that’s when it will stop happening."
Gaines outlined the next phase, which she believes necessitates action from Congress, states, federal agencies, and parents. "We need Congress to codify President Trump’s executive orders," Gaines stated. "We need states, whether it’s through legislation, although I think we’re kind of reaching the cap there, so through ballot initiatives at this point." She also advocated for "real enforcement mechanisms" against states and institutions that refuse to comply. "I think that’s what is gonna make any of these people move, is when you hit them where it hurts, which is always going to be the pockets," Gaines explained. "Whether you’re a corporation, whether you’re a government entity, doesn’t matter."
Sey noted that the ruling’s implications extend beyond school sports, as Title IX does not encompass every arena where female athletes compete. "Title IX doesn’t actually cover the Olympic movement. It doesn’t actually cover private club sports," Sey pointed out. "The Boston Marathon has its own governance. Men can compete in the women’s category in the Boston Marathon." She concluded, "So there’s still a lot of work to do. It’s why I keep saying we have to focus on changing the culture, because I think once we do that, all of the governing bodies will fall in line and protect the women’s category."
As Gaines continues to champion the issue, she envisions the ultimate resolution not in a courtroom or a new piece of legislation, but through a broader cultural shift. "When people, your everyday person, so think of parents, coaches, et cetera, when they’re bold enough to defend their daughters or defend their athletes or defend themselves," Gaines affirmed. "That’s when you see real change."
