Supreme Court upholds transgender sports ban. What does it mean for NH?

• The nation’s highest court ruled Tuesday that states can ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams.
• The court said West Virginia's and Idaho’s bans on female transgender athletes do not violate either the Constitution or a federal law barring sex discrimination in education.
• New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte said that she believes the decision will help the state enforce their law, which bans transgender girls from participating in school sports in grades 5-12.

New Hampshire’s law banning transgender girls from competing on girls’ sports teams may have received a boost from the Supreme Court's decision on June 30.

The nation’s highest court ruled Tuesday that states can ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, addressing a major cultural and political flashpoint before adjourning for the summer.

The decision is another setback for the LGBTQ+ community from the high court, which has issued a series of recent rulings against transgender Americans.

The court said West Virginia's and Idaho’s bans on female transgender athletes do not violate either the Constitution or a federal law barring sex discrimination in education.

Twenty-seven states, including New Hampshire, have passed similar bans, saying they are trying to ensure fairness and address safety concerns for non-transgender women.

New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said that she believes the decision will help the state enforce their law, which bans transgender girls from participating in school sports in grades 5-12.

“It is unfair for biological males to compete in women’s sports, and as the mom of a daughter who competed in varsity sports in high school, I am pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision today that protects women’s sports and paves the way to enforce our law in New Hampshire prohibiting men from competing in women’s sports,” Ayotte said in a statement.

New Hampshire’s law is currently being challenged by two New Hampshire transgender students. Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle had sued the state of New Hampshire in late summer 2024 over the law that barred transgender girls in grades 5-12 from playing on sports teams that aligned with their gender identity. The lawsuit argues that the state’s law violates Title IX by denying Tirrell and Turmelle equal education opportunities and singling them out for discrimination solely on the basis of their gender identity. 

Lower courts in the state have sided with the transgender students. But New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella said the Supreme Court’s decision provides “strong support” for New Hampshire’s law.

“We are reviewing the decision and evaluating the appropriate next steps in the pending litigation,” Formella said in a statement. “We remain confident in the State's position and will continue to vigorously defend HB 1205.”

What did the Supreme Court say?

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said schools "may determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex."

"Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable," he wrote.

Kavanaugh, who coached his daughters in basketball, said during the oral arguments that he hates the idea that a kid who wants to play sports may not be able to. But if a transgender girl makes a team or a starting lineup, she will bump someone else, he said.

"And I think we can’t sweep that aside," Kavanaugh added.

Kavanaugh emphasized that point in his opinion but also made a plea for respect for the transgender athletes who have been at the center of the contentious national debate.

"Those student athletes want to play sports. Their desire to compete warrants respect," he wrote. "No student-athlete on either side of the issues, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified."

In a partial dissent that was joined by her two liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have given the student challenging West Virginia's law a chance to show that the ban should not apply to her.

"In opting otherwise, the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports," she wrote. "Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent."