Supreme Court Affirms: Title IX Protects Women

Title IX was written to protect women. For fifty years, it largely did. It opened numerous doors in education for women, expanded their athletic opportunities, and gave generations of women a fairer shot at competing—in classrooms and on fields. The law worked because Congress understood something basic: men and women are different, and equal opportunity sometimes requires acknowledging that.

Then came the effort to redefine the word “sex.”

On his first day in office, President Biden issued an executive order attempting to expand “sex” and “sex discrimination” in federal law to include “gender identity”—in direct contradiction to both biological reality and Title IX’s plain text. A federal district court struck down those rule changes in January 2025, and the Trump administration has reinforced Title IX’s original protections. But that hasn’t stopped gender ideology activists from continuing to try and circumvent Title IX’s plain meaning.

But here’s the truth: Title IX cannot protect women if the law no longer knows what a woman is.

Thankfully, in June 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in two ADF cases affirming that “sex” refers to biological sex in Title IX. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion in State of West Virginia v. B.P.J.and Little v. Hecox: “The term “sex” in the 1972 Title IX statute … cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.”

It’s a much-needed victory—but one that never should’ve been needed to begin with.

What is the history of Title IX?

Title IX was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972 and signed into law by President Nixon on June 23 of that year. It was built as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which had prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin in employment and public accommodation but had left sex discrimination in federally funded education programs largely unaddressed.

Hawaii Rep. Patsy Mink, with contributions from Oregon Rep. Edith Green and Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh, authored the bill that became Title IX. Its core provision is simple: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

What has been the effect of Title IX on women?

Title IX opened up numerous opportunities for women. One of the greatest effects of Title IX has been on women’s sports.

• In 1972, boys outnumbered girls in high school sports by more than 12 to 1—3.66 million to 300,000. Fifty years later, that gap had shrunk to roughly 4 to 3.
• In collegiate athletics, male athletes once outnumbered female athletes nearly 6 to 1. By 2022, that gap had narrowed to just under 4 to 3.

In addition to athletics, the percentage of women between 25 and 34 with at least a college degree more than tripled since 1968.

Title IX worked because it was built on a biological reality—that men and women are different and that equal opportunity sometimes requires acknowledging that difference.

The meaning of ‘sex’ in Title IX

Though Title IX has, for decades, been hailed for banning “sex discrimination” in education, the plain meaning of the word “sex” has been called into question, and many are wrongly advocating that “sex” should be redefined to include “gender identity.”

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that an employer who fires an individual for identifying as gay or transgender discriminates based on “sex” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was a new expansion of what Title VII meant and covered. The Biden administration then incorrectly sought to expand the Court’s ruling beyond employment discrimination and apply it to Title IX, which covers educational programs like sports, showers, and locker rooms.

But it is clear from the text of Title IX (as it is in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that sex meant biological sex, male and female, and that the government can sometimes take a person’s sex into account to ensure equal opportunities. For example, Title IX allows schools, in some cases, to change “from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes.”

Not only do provisions like this speak of “the” other sex or “both sexes,” rather than “another” sex or “all sexes,” but they also use terms like “father-son” and “mother-daughter” which are rooted in biology. Title IX says nothing about gender identity.

Alliance Defending Freedom strongly opposes any effort to redefine sex in federal regulations inconsistent with the text of Title IX itself for several reasons:

1. It lacks legal authority

Redefining “sex discrimination” is not authorized by Title IX’s text or Supreme Court precedent. Title IX deals with sex, not gender identity.

Likewise, the Bostock decision mentioned above does not require reinterpreting “sex” under Title IX. The Court there held that firing someone merely for identifying as gay or transgender violates Title VII. But that decision does not equate sex and gender identity and does not make it illegal for officials to consider sex when necessary to provide equal opportunities, like when officials provide sex-designated showers, locker rooms, restrooms, and sports to protect people’s privacy, safety, and fairness.

In fact, the Supreme Court in the Bostock decision explicitly rejected any application outside of the context of hiring and firing employees under Title VII when it said,

The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today.

As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in its B.P.J. and Hecox decision, when it comes to Title IX and women’s sports, “Title VII and Bostock are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context.”

2. It jeopardizes the privacy of women and girls  

Redefining “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity” allows males who identify as female to enter women’s and girls’ private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and overnight accommodations during school trips. This puts the privacy and safety of women in jeopardy—and the issue is not just hypothetical.

ADF represented Adaleia Cross, a female athlete who was sexually harassed by a male student she was forced to share a locker room with and compete against. The male student made vulgar comments to Adaleia regarding his male genitalia. She felt so uncomfortable in the girls’ locker room that she had to change in a bathroom stall.

3. It violates freedoms of speech and religion

Redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” threatens to censor and compel speech, trample religious exercise, and imperil the educational mission of schools nationwide.

ADF has defended multiple individuals who were punished simply for expressing (or choosing not to express) beliefs about sex and gender.

• When he was in seventh grade, Liam Morrison was removed from class for wearing a T-shirt that said, “There are only two genders.” School officials told him he must remove the shirt, and when he declined, he was sent home for the day. Officials later prevented Liam from wearing a shirt with the message, “There are censored genders.” ADF filed a lawsuit on Liam’s behalf, but unfortunately, a federal district court and appellate court both failed to protect his free speech. In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case—though Justice Alito noted it “presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth.” The fight to protect students’ free speech rights continues.
• Likewise, when “sex” is redefined to include “gender identity,” a speaker who declines to use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s sex could face discipline. In 2021, ADF successfully defended Dr. Nicholas Meriwether in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit after his employer, Shawnee State University, punished him for “discrimination” when he declined to refer to a male student as a woman. As a Christian, Dr. Meriwether knew it would be harmful to lie to students by using pronouns that did not match their biological sex. But redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” could force Dr. Meriwether and other professors and teachers to lie in this way or face government punishment.

4. It hurts female athletes

Redefining “sex discrimination” undermines fairness in women’s sports and diminishes women’s privacy and safety. ADF has represented multiple female athletes like Selina Soule and Chelsea Mitchell who have lost to male athletes in women’s sporting events.

ADF served as co-counsel alongside West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador in defending both states’ laws protecting female athletes—laws that the ACLU challenged on behalf of males who identify as female. ADF intervened on behalf of female athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall in Idaho and Lainey Armstead in West Virginia. The human cost of inaction is documented and real: in West Virginia alone, a single male athlete has defeated 470 girls over 1,400 times combined—including the women’s state championship in shot put as a sophomore. Those are opportunities girls will never get back.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the cases—State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox—on January 13, 2026. Thankfully, as mentioned above, the Court ruled that Title IX defines “sex” as biological sex, ultimately affirming that states can protect their female athletes.

“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes,” the Supreme Court wrote in its opinion.

This ruling is a major win for both truth and Title IX.

A win worth building on

The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox is a significant step forward for every female in America. Combined with the final resolution of State of Tennessee v. McMahon, the legal landscape is meaningfully better than it was even a year ago.

But the fight is not over. For instance, there are still 23 states that have not passed laws ensuring fairness in women’s sports, something they’re all empowered to do after the recent Supreme Court ruling. The work continues.

Title IX was built on a simple truth: that men and women are different and that those differences matter. Every court victory, every state law, every female who stands up and says this isn’t right—all of it is in service of that truth. Every girl in America should be allowed to compete on a fair and safe playing field, both in sports and in every other area of her life.

That’s what Title IX was always meant to guarantee.

We are all equal, but we aren’t all the same.

When biology is ignored, and words like “sex” lose their meaning, it is women and girls who bear the brunt of that mistake.

Title IX should remain a law that serves to protect opportunities and safety for women and girls.