Trump’s Trans Athlete Stance Clashes With States’ Rights Claim

The Trump administration’s position that federal antidiscrimination law bars transgender women and girls from female sports teams has sparked legal fights with states that allow students on teams that align with their gender identity.

Potentially billions of federal education dollars are at stake in the standoffs, which come as litigation over transgender rights is unfolding across the country, including transgender students’ access to restrooms and other facilities.

The fight tests the balance between the states’ sovereign right to make their own laws and the administration’s authority to interpret Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in educational activities that receive federal funding.

The Title IX cases are a flash point in broader legal and policy battles over transgender rights where the administration’s views could have influence.

If a court sanctions the administration’s interpretation, “it would have to be because they say ‘this is what Title IX means all of the time,’ which means we would not be in a position where a future administration could simply say, ‘we think it means something different,’” said Katie Eyer, an antidiscrimination law professor at Rutgers University. “The implications would be quite substantial.”

Although 27 states ban transgender girls from female sports, states like California and Minnesota assert they aren’t required to comply with Trump’s Title IX interpretation because of state sovereignty.

Federal circuits are split on whether transgender-based discrimination violates the law. And the US Supreme Court is set to consider equal protection challenges to state laws banning transgender girls from female teams, one of which includes a Title IX claim.

Fighting for Funding

The administration has threatened funding over schools’ transgender policies, arguing that allowing transgender athletes in female sports doesn’t provide cisgender girls with equal opportunities. More than a dozen states allow students on teams that align with their gender identity.

The Williams Institute, a UCLA Law research center, estimates there are roughly 300,000 transgender youth between the ages of 13-17 across the country. Of those, roughly 122,000 are estimated to be participating in high school-level athletics.

The US Department of Justice asserted in a lawsuit against California—which was allocated roughly $44 billion for its K-12 schools in fiscal year 2025—that its policy “undermines the very purpose of Title IX: to provide equal access to educational benefits, including interscholastic athletics.”

Minnesota also sued the administration after its federal funding was allegedly threatened. Minnesota said it faces “federal intrusion into core areas of state sovereignty” unless it yields to the administration’s view, which “directly conflicts with Minnesota law.”

The DOJ, which declined to comment, argued “state entities are required to follow federal law” under the US Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Paul Smith, a visiting Georgetown University law professor and senior adviser to the Campaign Legal Center, said the administration’s reading of Title IX isn’t “crazy.” Assuming it’s one “the courts will permit, the issue of state sovereignty isn’t going to really have much impact” due to the supremacy clause.

There’s “not really a constitutional argument that the federal government can’t tell the states what to do,” Smith said. Through a funding statute, the administration can “impose that on any school system that takes federal funds.”

After Title IX was enacted, Congress passed the Javits Amendment to create regulations that consider “the nature of particular sports.”

“If you dig into what the statute actually says and then what the regulations actually say, it’s very hard to find really any sort of support for the Trump administration’s position,” Eyer said.

Title IX doesn’t mention sports—or define “sex"—but its regulations say a school “may operate” sex-separate teams for contact sports or where selection is “based upon competitive skill,” while ensuring equal opportunity for “both sexes.”

Since the regulations at times allow sex-separate teams, Eyer said, it’s “not a violation of the statute if they don’t choose to fully take advantage of that permission.”

Some attorneys interpret those regulations differently.

Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel at the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, said under the regulation “a school ‘may operate’ separate teams, but then the next provision says a school ‘shall provide’ equal opportunity for members of both” sexes. Title IX is “sex-conscious.” Sometimes “that requires them to provide separate sports teams,” Scruggs said.

The alliance represents the cisgender female advocacy group Female Athletes United in a lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s policy.

Title IX and Bostock

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which centered on employment bias claims, said under Title VII discriminating against someone for being transgender is prohibited because it necessarily involves discriminating based on sex.

Minnesota argued Bostock “shows why” Title IX may prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, even if Title IX refers to “biological sex.”

The Fourth and Seventh circuits have held that transgender-based discrimination violates Title IX. But the Eleventh Circuit in 2022 said Title VII is different than Title IX, a position several courts echoed in rejecting the Biden administration’s expanded Title IX protections.

The Supreme Court will hear appeals from Idaho and West Virginia after their laws banning transgender girls from female sports were struck down, which present equal protection claims brought by transgender girls.

“My heart sank when the Supreme Court granted cert in those two cases, because I am concerned that the Supreme Court is looking to find a way to subvert Bostock and say that Title IX doesn’t actually protect the rights of transgender students,” said Chris Erchull, a senior staff attorney at the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAD Law.

GLAD represents transgender girls challenging Trump’s executive order and a New Hampshire law barring them from female sports.

Scruggs said the alliance, which represents West Virginia at the Supreme Court, is “confident” in its arguments that Title IX can’t be interpreted “to essentially allow men to compete in any sport.”

“I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court—given its prior rulings, given the precedent in these areas—will embrace that argument,” Scruggs said.