Alabama Leads 28 State Effort to Protect Girl’s Sports

Alabama is leading 27 other States in urging the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to affirm that States retain the power to pass laws which protect girls’ and women’s sports by limiting participation to biological females. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office announced the filings of two briefs in pending SCOTUS cases on Friday, September 19.

The amici briefs, filed in Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J., respond to recent appellate court rulings that struck down similar State laws, finding they likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX when biological males who identify as female are barred from female sports.

In Idaho, the Ninth Circuit held that Idaho’s law—banning transgender women and girls from female public sports teams at all levels—likely violates equal protection because it discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status. In West Virginia, the Fourth Circuit likewise ruled that the State’s law conflicts with equal protection and Title IX by excluding those whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.

Alabama’s law, House Bill 261 (HB261), enacted in 2023, is built on the same principle: athletic teams in K-12 public schools and public colleges and universities must be separated on the basis of biological sex rather than gender identity. The law states that the State finds biological males, on average, have “larger body size with more skeletal muscle mass, a lower percentage of body fat, and greater maximal delivery of anaerobic and aerobic energy than biological females,” and that even after puberty and for those who might suppress testosterone, biological male athletes retain advantages. By its terms, a public K-12 school in Alabama may not allow a biological male to compete on a female team, nor a female to compete on a male team if a female team exists. For public colleges, any team or sport designated for females, women, or girls must exclude biological males.

The Alabama law was intended to guard fairness, preserve athletic opportunity for females, and avoid physical mismatches. Governor Kay Ivey, when signing HB 261, said simply, “If you are a biological male, you are not going to be competing in women’s and girls’ sports in Alabama. It’s about fairness, plain and simple.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. carries direct implications for Alabama. If the Court upholds the State authority to classify sports teams by biological sex, Alabama’s 2023 law becomes more secure against legal challenges. It may be insulated from claims that it violates equal protection or conflicts with Title IX. Alabama would be able to enforce its law with greater confidence, and similar bills in other States could be validated.

If instead, the Court rules that laws like Alaska’s, Idaho’s, or West Virginia’s cannot exclude transgender-identifying individuals from women’s sports teams, it may force Alabama to revisit or modify HB 261. Plaintiffs may bring suits arguing that the law is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause or that Title IX prohibits exclusion based on gender identity. The applicable standard of judicial review—in particular, whether a law is subject to “heightened scrutiny” because it classifies by sex and transgender status—will matter greatly both in Alabama and in every Red State.

As of now, Little v. Hecox is set for argument in the 2025-26 Supreme Court term. A ruling is expected in mid-2026. Alabama officials and allied States argue they have law, science, and the public will on their side. Whether the Court agrees will determine how far States may go in limiting participation in women’s sports to those who are biological females.

While the two cases have not formally been combined, they have both been accepted for the 2025-2026 term, and are being heard in parallel.

The Little v. Hecox brief is available HERE, and the West Virginia v. B.P.J. brief is available HERE.