Supreme Court Reaffirms Title IX, Equal Protection, and the Rule of Law in Women’s Sports Cases

Washington D.C. — The Wagner Faith & Freedom Center at Spring Arbor University applauds today’s landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of laws enacted by West Virginia and Idaho preserving girls’ and women’s athletic competition for biological females. In a decisive affirmation of both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that states may reserve female athletic teams for biological women and girls in order to protect fairness, safety, and equal athletic opportunity.

Spring Arbor University President Dr. Brent Ellis and the Wagner Center participated in both cases by filing merits-stage amicus curiae briefs, represented by counsel Hon. William Wagner (Ret.), Distinguished Chair for Faith & Freedom at Spring Arbor University and former federal judge.

Unlike many amici, the Wagner Center’s briefs did more than present legal arguments. They provided the Court with a comprehensive Brandeis-style factual record drawn from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics’ (NAIA) exhaustive two-year study of transgender participation in collegiate athletics. The Supreme Court’s reasoning closely parallels the constitutional and factual framework presented in those briefs.

“Our briefs argued that preserving women’s athletics on the basis of biological sex advances the very objectives Congress sought to protect through Title IX—fair competition, athlete safety, and equal opportunity,” said William Wagner. “The majority’s opinion reflects these same foundational principles throughout its analysis.”

President Brent Ellis played a uniquely important role in developing that factual record. As a member of the NAIA Council of Presidents, he participated directly in the Association’s comprehensive two-year review of its transgender participation policy. The Council assembled a task force, studied the scientific and competitive evidence, consulted broadly, and ultimately concluded that biological sex remains an essential criterion for preserving fairness and safety in women’s athletics. Following that process, the Council of Presidents unanimously adopted a new policy reserving NAIA-sponsored women’s competition for biological females.

“The NAIA demonstrated thoughtful leadership by approaching this issue carefully, respectfully, and deliberately,” Wagner. “Its conclusions were grounded not in ideology but in objective evidence regarding competitive fairness, athlete safety, and the preservation of opportunities for women. We were honored to bring that experience before the Supreme Court.”

The NAIA’s leadership proved influential far beyond intercollegiate athletics. Since completion of the NAIA’s review, other governing bodies have moved in a similar direction. The NCAA revised its participation policy to prohibit biological males from competing on women’s teams, while continuing to permit limited practice opportunities under specified circumstances. Likewise, numerous international sports federations, following policy changes encouraged by the International Olympic Committee, adopted biological-sex eligibility standards for women’s competition after reviewing emerging scientific evidence regarding male athletic advantage.

Today’s decision likewise recognizes that objective biological differences remain constitutionally relevant in athletic competition. The Court held that preserving fair competition, protecting athlete safety, and maintaining equal athletic opportunities for women constitute important governmental interests and that limiting women’s athletic teams to biological females is substantially related to achieving those objectives.

“This decision reaches far beyond athletics,” Wagner added. “It reaffirms a foundational principle of constitutional government that the law must remain anchored to objective reality. Courts do not create reality; they recognize it. By interpreting Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause according to its original public meaning and respecting the biological distinctions Congress understood when it enacted the statute, the Supreme Court strengthened not only women’s sports but also the rule of law.”

The SCOTUS only held that states may prohibit males from participating in women’s sports — saying that safety and fairness were important government interests, and that separating sports based on biological sex was a proper legal means of accomplishing this governmental interest — and therefore the government actions here did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. The Court did not say whether a state could allow males identifying as female to participate in women’s sports - that question was left for another day.

The Wagner Faith & Freedom Center remains committed to advancing constitutional government, religious liberty, parental rights, and the enduring principles of natural law that undergird America’s constitutional order.