The United States Supreme Court today ruled that states have the constitutional authority to protect girls’ sports by reserving female teams for females. In a 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Court held that such laws violate neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause, upholding measures already on the books in 27 states.
“This is a victory for every girl who has been told to sit down, share her podium, and stay quiet while a male takes her place,” said Sophia Lorey, Outreach Director at California Family Council and a former collegiate athlete. “Men cannot become women, and no policy from CIF or Gavin Newsom can erase the male physical advantage. The Supreme Court has now said plainly what California’s leaders have spent a decade denying: protecting girls’ sports is not discrimination; it is the law.”
Lorey, one of California’s most visible advocates for women’s and girls’ athletics, spoke alongside state attorneys general in Washington last January when the Court heard arguments in the two cases.
The decision puts the question squarely back on Sacramento. California is one of 23 states that do not protect girls’ sports, still allowing males to compete on female teams.
Just weeks ago, at the May 2026 CIF State Track and Field Championships, a male athlete competing as “AB Hernandez” claimed titles in three girls’ events: long jump, high jump, and triple jump. Hernandez displaced female athletes who had trained their entire lives for that moment. Rather than protect the girls, CIF manufactured an extra medal and an expanded podium, forcing female competitors to stand beside the male who had beaten them.
“California’s politicians have run out of excuses,” said Lorey. “They can keep defying the Constitution and the courts, or they can finally stand with our daughters. We intend to make sure they choose correctly.”
California Family Council has been at the center of the state’s fight:
- Under California’s AB 1266 (2013) and CIF Bylaw 300.D, males who identify as female are permitted to compete on girls’ teams and access girls’ locker rooms. CFC has long argued these policies place California in direct conflict with Title IX.
- In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice formally notified California that schools following CIF Bylaw 300.D are violating federal law, yet Sacramento dismissed the finding.
- The Legislature’s Democratic supermajority has buried the Protect Girls’ Sports Act, and the Protect Kids California ballot initiative was kept off the ballot. With the political branches stonewalling, CFC has led the fight for female athletes and their families in the Golden State.
California Family Council is calling on Governor Newsom, the Legislature, and CIF to immediately bring California into compliance — and is urging parents, coaches, and student-athletes who have been harmed by CIF’s policy to add their voices to the petition at XXonly.org.
About the cases. West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act both reserve girls’ and women’s school sports teams for females. The ACLU challenged both laws. Alliance Defending Freedom represented female athletes who intervened to defend them, including Lainey Armistead in West Virginia and Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall in Idaho. After the Fourth and Ninth Circuits ruled against the states, the Supreme Court heard the consolidated arguments on January 13, 2026, and issued today’s decision.
