Every Supreme Court term produces headlines. This one produced structural change — the kind that will shape how power works in Washington, D.C., in statehouses, and in your own community for years to come.
Start with the case that mattered most: Trump v. Slaughter. For 90 years, Congress could shield the heads of “independent” agencies — the Federal Trade Commission, and by extension dozens of similar bodies — from being fired by the president except for cause. The Court ended that, ruling that if an official exercises the president’s executive power, the president can remove him. In practice, that means voters who elect a president now have more say over the sprawling bureaucracy that regulates everything from consumer products to labor disputes, rather than leaving that power with unelected commissioners serving staggered terms.
A companion case, Trump v. Cook, carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve — Fed governors can be fired only for cause, a 5-4 compromise that Justice Barrett, in dissent, called out as arbitrary and going beyond what the Court needed to decide the case.
Women’s sports had one of their best days ever at the Court. In cases out of West Virginia and Idaho, all nine justices agreed that Title IX — the law that opened the door to girls’ athletics in the first place — doesn’t force states to let biological males compete on girls’ teams. A narrower 6-3 majority held that constitutional equal protection likewise allows states to protect female athletes. That means the 27 states that already protect single-sex sports are on solid legal ground, and cases are already wending their way to the Supreme Court asking whether equal protection and Title IX actually require the other 23 states to do so.
The Second Amendment kept winning, too. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down a Hawaii law that weaponized trespass law against concealed-carry permit holders: Instead of assuming that a valid permit holder could enter a business with his weapon unless told otherwise, Hawaii required businesses to explicitly invite him in first. The Court said that the law effectively criminalized ordinary daily life for lawful gun owners — a ruling that should also doom copycat laws in California and other blue states. In a separate case, the justices unanimously held that the government can’t strip someone’s gun rights merely because he’s an occasional marijuana user, absent any sign he’s actually dangerous.
The First Amendment had an outstanding term as well. The Court struck down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” counseling, ruling that a state can’t let therapists affirm a client’s gender identity while banning them from helping a client move the other direction — that’s the government picking sides on a viewpoint, not regulating conduct.
Elsewhere, the Court protected a New Jersey pregnancy center’s right to keep its donor list private from a hostile state subpoena, and struck down limits on how much political parties can coordinate spending with their own candidates. The campaign finance ruling is the latest in a series of cases reaffirming that free speech includes the right to political speech, and it will likely shift fundraising and election spending back to the parties and away from outside groups and Super PACs.
The term also delivered a landmark election law decision: Louisiana v. Callais. The Court held that a Voting Rights Act lawsuit can’t succeed just by pointing to a correlation between race and party in a district — plaintiffs now need real evidence of intentional discrimination. The Court put that reasoning to work almost immediately in an emergency order reinstating Alabama’s congressional map, an order that invoked the “colorblind Constitution” — language borrowed from the first Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, and now, for the first time, adopted by a majority. In practice, this makes it harder to scurrilously repackage partisan gerrymandering claims with racial language. One disappointment: the Court left in place the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, though it noted Congress could set a firmer national rule if it chose to.
Immigration cases mostly went the government’s way, with the Court reading several statutes in commonsense, textualist terms — including a ruling that someone who is stopped at the border hasn’t yet “arrived in” the country, reaffirming that courts can’t second-guess the president’s determination not to exempt Haitian and Syrian immigrants from removal, and another making it easier to remove green-card holders who commit serious crimes. The exception was the birthright citizenship case, where the majority applied the traditional, broad meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to cover the U.S.-born children of both illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. As an originalist matter, it was a difficult case, with both sides grappling with the historical evidence. Justice Thomas’s 91-page dissent masterfully presented a narrower view of the Clause, but even the dissenters concluded that the president’s executive order likely went further than the Constitution permits.
On the business side, the Court made it harder for trial lawyers to drag oil companies into friendly state courts over decades-old wartime production, ruling that those suits belong in federal court — a real check on the climate-litigation industry that’s grown up around this kind of lawsuit.
Not every case broke along predictable lines. In a dispute over the president’s tariff powers, originalist justices ended up on both sides — a useful reminder that originalism is a method, not a rubber stamp, and methods sometimes produce results conservatives don’t love.
The term produced a few decisions that disappointed the president or conservatives, but, taken as a whole, it stands as one of the most significant terms in memory for bringing the Court back to an originalist understanding of the Constitution. Presidential removal power, women’s sports, the First and Second Amendments, immigration enforcement, climate and election litigation abuse — the Court engaged all of it and got the lion’s share right. That’s not a disappointing term. That’s a historic one.
***
Carrie Severino is the president of the Judicial Crisis Network. Follow her on X <a href="https://www.twitter.com/@JCNSeverino">@JCNSeverino</a>

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

The Supreme Court Term That Handed Originalists One Of Their Best Years Yet

birthright citizenship

DW Opinion

Election Laws

executive power

First Amendment

Louisiana v. Callais

Second Amendment

Supreme Court

Title IX

Transgender Athletes

Trump v. Cook

Trump v. Slaughter

Wolford v. Lopez

For years, the transgender movement has demanded that Americans go along with an increasingly rigid orthodoxy — adopt its preferred language, accept its premises without question, and treat any hesitation as bigotry. Women&#8217;s sports is where that demand finally ran into a wall. It&#8217;s one thing to ask people to use a new name. It&#8217;s another to ask the parent watching her daughter lose a state title to a biological male, or the coach watching a girl get bumped from the roster, to pretend she isn&#8217;t seeing what she&#8217;s seeing. Anyone who&#8217;s played sports or watched their kids play them knows there are real, obvious physical differences between male and female athletes. This was always going to be the issue where the emperor&#8217;s lack of clothes became impossible to ignore — and the Supreme Court said so, decisively.
In a 6–3 decision covering both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Court held that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title IX stops states from reserving women&#8217;s and girls&#8217; sports teams for biological females. Title IX was passed in 1972 to guarantee girls a place in athletics, after decades in which they&#8217;d been frozen out. It took chutzpah to argue, 50 years later, that the same law requires schools to let biological males take roster spots, scholarships, and trophies from the very girls it was written to protect. Six justices weren&#8217;t buying it.
West Virginia&#8217;s Save Women&#8217;s Sports Act and Idaho&#8217;s Fairness in Women&#8217;s Sports Act both define sex by biology and reserve girls&#8217; teams accordingly — common-sense laws that got tangled up in lower courts eager to strike them down. The Fourth Circuit ruled against West Virginia, while the Ninth Circuit blocked Idaho&#8217;s law as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court reversed both. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh noted that Title IX explicitly authorizes sex-specific sports teams. Under the Equal Protection Clause he applied intermediate scrutiny — the standard for sex-based classifications — and found that &#8220;safety and competitive fairness&#8221; are important government interests substantially served by sex-based eligibility rules. He rejected the idea that courts should referee, case by case, which biological males have suppressed their advantage enough through hormones to compete against girls — an &#8220;almost impossible task&#8221; to perform fairly. For intermediate scrutiny, the fact that men and women , as a group, differ so dramatically in size, strength, and general athletic ability is sufficient to allow laws separating sports to pass constitutional muster.
Kavanaugh&#8217;s opinion didn&#8217;t shy away from naming what&#8217;s actually at stake: &#8220;Sports are generally zero sum.&#8221; Every spot given to a male athlete on a girls&#8217; team is a spot, a starting position, or a medal taken from a girl. That&#8217;s not a hypothetical for Kavanaugh, who has coached his own daughters&#8217; basketball teams for years — known to his players as &#8220;Coach K.&#8221; Few justices were better positioned to write that sentence.
Justice Thomas, in concurrence, went further, writing that transgender status doesn&#8217;t trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny and that sex is &#8220;binary&#8221; and &#8220;immutable.&#8221; But the line worth remembering is the one where he names what&#8217;s really been at stake all along — not just sports, but whether Americans can be made to say things they know aren&#8217;t true: &#8220;To use language to obscure reality—to show &#8216;indifference regarding the truth&#8217;—is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens &#8216;as equal[s].'&#8221; The demand was never just for kindness toward people experiencing gender dysphoria — most Americans are happy to extend that. The demand was for everyone else to repeat a falsehood on command. Thomas just said, in a Supreme Court opinion, that no one has to.
Justice Gorsuch added that Title IX, as a Spending Clause statute, can&#8217;t bind states to obligations Congress never spelled out clearly. He also attempted to reconcile the decision with Bostock v. Clayton County — his much-maligned 2020 ruling that redefined &#8220;sex&#8221; under Title VII to include gender identity but never purported to govern locker rooms or sports teams.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented in part, significantly acknowledging that sex in Title IX is binary, but arguing the equal protection claims should have gone back down for fact-finding on whether transgender athletes are &#8220;similarly situated&#8221; to biological girls — an invitation to years of litigation over hormone levels and athletic advantage.
Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, argued Title IX should let students compete according to gender identity rather than biology. She added that &#8220;West Virginia&#8217;s law forces B. P. J. to live—in this case, to play—as a boy though she is a girl.&#8221;
It’s worth sitting with that, because four years ago, then-Judge Jackson sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to define what a woman is because she wasn&#8217;t a biologist. That non-answer was widely mocked at the time, and fairly so. Now the same justice has no trouble declaring, as a matter of law, that a biological male is a girl. The biology didn&#8217;t get more complicated in the intervening four years. What changed is that this time, declining to answer wouldn&#8217;t have gotten her to the result she wanted.
This decision validates the laws already on the books in 27 states protecting girls&#8217; sports, and removes the legal cloud that&#8217;s hung over them since the Fourth and Ninth Circuit rulings. Expect more states to follow now that the Court has confirmed there&#8217;s no constitutional cliff on the other side.
But don&#8217;t expect the fight to end here. The ruling says states may limit girls&#8217; sports to biological females — not that they must. That leaves an opening for the next round of litigation: whether states that let biological males compete against girls are themselves exposing girls to sex discrimination under Title IX. If &#8220;safety and competitive fairness&#8221; justify excluding males from girls&#8217; sports, advocates will argue, then states that decline to exclude them may be the ones violating the law.
For now, though, this is a clean, important win — for the rule of law, for the plain meaning of a 1972 statute, and most of all for the thousands of girls whose roster spots, records, medals, and scholarships are no longer up for grabs.
***
Carrie Severino is the president of the Judicial Crisis Network. Follow her on X <a href="https://www.twitter.com/@JCNSeverino">@JCNSeverino</a>

Sadie Schreiner, a Transgender Track Athlete, Fights to Compete in Her Sport as a Sprinter

The Supreme Court Just Saved Women’s Sports

Save Women's Sports Act

Our Founding Fathers would not have recognized today’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-protects-womens-sports-in-landmark-ruling">Supreme Court ruling</a>, which upheld bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. After many pen strokes on parchment, what would later become the most powerful nation the world has ever seen laid its foundation on one word: liberty.
Liberty is the means to pursue happiness, and thus we were given the Declaration’s most famous phrase. But the Declaration doesn’t promise happiness; it protects its pursuit. Liberty never meant “I get whatever I want.” It has always meant “I am free until that freedom unjustly burdens or harms someone else.” Liberty must be balanced with responsibility. And that’s why today’s decision isn’t simply about sports. It’s about whether one person’s identity can override another’s rights.
The nation’s highest court didn’t create a new principle — it reaffirmed an old one. Rights often conflict. When they do, justice must prevail. Girls deserve equal opportunity, privacy, safety, and fair competition. And no one’s liberty can be protected by a society that refuses to acknowledge reality.
I’m not a founding father, but I am a girl dad. And every dad understands this instinctively. I don’t hate boys (I have two sons). I simply love my daughters. They deserve to compete fairly for scholarships and championships without having to share a bathroom with a boy. Liberty does not permit another child to take their opportunities. One of their classmate’s freedoms can’t erase their rights.
But there is another victim in this debate. The Left likes to claim that conservatives hate transgender individuals. I certainly don’t. I treat each one I meet with the same dignity I afford others. I believe many are suffering, and political slogans only fail them. You can despise an ideology without despising the person trapped inside it.
Where else in society do we not offer healing to those who are suffering? This is where “truth” gets in the way. We now hear phrases on debate stages such as “my truth” and “your truth.” But truth isn’t subjective. And truth is often framed as the opposition to compassion. But truth makes compassion possible. Without an honest diagnosis, there can never be real treatment.
We don’t buy the alcoholic a beer. We help him find a rehab facility. We don’t tell anorexic people to lose another twenty pounds. We help them shift their perception. A compassionate doctor doesn’t hide a diagnosis. He delivers the truth because that is the first step in the healing process. In every example, pursuing the former remedy results in greater suffering. The most compassionate thing we can do as Americans is help our neighbors reconcile with reality rather than conform to their suffering.
But it is the former approach that our media and corporations continue to employ. When ESPN reports that the Supreme Court “upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletics teams,” or that dozens of states “have adopted bans on female transgender athletes,” it is rejecting the compassionate truth. “Transgender girls” and “female transgender athletes” are boys. When one sees his identity confirmed by our most prominent institutions, it affirms “his truth.”
Instead of asking, “How do we help people become comfortable in the bodies God blessed them with?” these institutions ask, “How do we persuade everyone else to participate in the identity they’ve adopted?” Affirmation is never treatment.
This is where conservatives have a tremendous opportunity to not just be known as the defenders of truth but as the people most willing to help those living through this struggle. It is well known how the Left panders to groups like this (and others) to win votes. But winning someone’s identity isn’t the same as winning the person. And there are a lot of hurting people.
But, like everything, this transcends politics. The Supreme Court shouldn’t have to fix natural truths. In fact, it should never make it past the dinner table. It should never make it out of the Church walls. It should never make it to the school pickup line. Parents first, but pastors, teachers, and citizens alike can play a role in identifying, helping, responding, and intervening. It’s the compassionate thing to do.
I want my daughters to inherit an America where girls can be girls — fairly. I also want every young person struggling with their gender to get the appropriate help. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison gifted us a nation built on ordered liberty, not limitless self-definition. The challenge before us is not choosing between truth and compassion but refusing to surrender either in our pursuit of happiness.
***
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast &#8220;We The People.&#8221; Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.

A girl holds the Transgender Pride flag during the pride

American Daughters Should Inherit A Country Where Girls Can Be Girls — Fairly

female sports

gender dysphoria

Liberty

Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that biology is real and biology matters. The Court’s decision recognizing that men and women have inherent differences in women’s sports cases is a resounding victory for every girl who experienced defeat because a boy was allowed to compete against her.
Across the country, girls are losing medals, roster spots, titles, opportunities, and privacy. The high court’s monumental <a href="https://adfmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/bpj-hecoxopinionscotus.pdf">ruling</a> in Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. — including a unanimous 9–0 win on Title IX — levels the playing field for female athletes and, even more importantly, affirms biological truth and reality.
Alliance Defending Freedom was proud to serve as co-counsel with Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey in defending both of their states’ laws protecting women’s sports.
Activists challenged those commonsense laws, insisting on pushing the destructive lie of gender ideology over girls’ opportunity, safety, and privacy. The resulting harm has been real, widespread, and devastating.
As we celebrate today’s much-needed return to sanity and fairness, I’m thinking of every courageous girl who got us to this point — of the female athletes who refused to stay quiet in the face of injustice, many of whom we have the privilege to represent.
Just in West Virginia, the boy who challenged its Save Women’s Sports law defeated more than 470 girls over 1,400 times and just won the women’s state championship in shot put. Our client Adaleia Cross knows the devastating consequences of laws that reject truth all too well. Not only did B.P.J. take her spot in a track-and-field championship meet, but he also sexually harassed Adaleia in the girls’ locker room, whispering in her ear sexually explicit things he wanted to do to her.
Madi Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, the girls standing to protect Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports law, both ran against a male athlete and lost every time.
In Washington state, a male wrestler whom the school district allowed to wrestle in a girls-only tournament sexually assaulted our client, 16-year-old Kallie Keeler.
In Connecticut, a boy took four state championship titles from Chelsea Mitchell. Selina Soule and Ashley Nicoletti lost the opportunity to compete at the state championship by one spot — that spot taken by a boy.
Lia Thomas went from 65th in men’s rankings to 1st in women’s after switching to compete on the women’s swim team. This was after testosterone suppression. That is not a glitch. That is the biological reality that no drug can make a man a woman or erase the male athletic advantage.
As a United Nations study recently revealed, more than 600 female athletes across 29 sports were defeated by men, who collectively took over 890 medals.
The bottom line is you cannot build fairness on falsehood. Policies that fail to recognize that sex matters in athletics sacrifice girls’ opportunities for a lie.
Girls’ sports should be fair and equal. Their spaces should be safe and private. When those protections are compromised, lasting damage is done.
Today’s decision is good news for the women and girls in the 27 states that chose to protect women’s sports. Now the other states must follow suit. The time is now for lawmakers, schools, and parents in those states to act. Men do not belong in women’s sports or locker rooms, and no girl, regardless of where she lives, should be denied equal opportunity.
And an overwhelming majority of Americans — across party lines — agree.
Attorneys General Labrador and McCuskey led. Every lawmaker and school administrator in the remaining 23 states should act now to protect women’s sports — or answer for why they are perpetrating injustice.
That’s because this issue goes beyond sports. When we can’t define what a woman is, every girl’s privacy is jeopardized in locker rooms, restrooms, school trips, and prisons. What happens on the field is just the beginning.
Let’s rejoice in this historic ruling that restores common sense. But let’s also stay the course in contending for objective truth and biological reality in every corner of society where false ideas and harmful policies have sought to take root. Every girl deserves fairness, safety, and equal opportunity.
***
Kristen Waggoner is CEO, president, and chief counsel of <a href="https://adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>. Follow Kristen on X <a href="https://x.com/kristenwaggoner">@KristenWaggoner</a> or follow ADF <a href="https://x.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>.

Trans Sports

Supreme Court Recognizes Reality, Rightly Upholds Fairness In Women’s Sports

June 23 marked the 54th anniversary of Title IX, a law whose passage deserves a moment to reflect on what this landmark accomplished.
For more than five decades, Title IX has expanded opportunities for generations of women and girls in education and athletics. It created pathways that previous generations could only dream of. Because of Title IX, millions of young women have had the opportunity to compete, earn scholarships, develop leadership skills, and pursue excellence on a level playing field.
I am one of those women.
As a former Division I track and field athlete, I dedicated years of my life to pursuing athletic success. Like so many female athletes, I woke up before sunrise for practice, sacrificed social events, trained through injuries, and pushed myself physically and mentally to compete at the highest level. Those sacrifices paid off when I won the Big Sky Conference championship in the 800-meter and set my sights on even greater goals.
Then, during my final year of eligibility, I learned I would be <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/profile/the-female-college-athlete-whose-years-of-training-may-now-be-in-vain/">competing against</a> a biological male athlete who had previously competed in the men&#8217;s category. Suddenly, the reality of competition changed.
Athletes are taught to overcome obstacles. If someone is faster, you train harder. If someone is stronger, you improve your technique. But no training program can eliminate biological differences between males and females. Males can run approximately <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IWLC_3rd-Edition_Competition-Report.pdf">11% faster</a> than females, and can accelerate around <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IWLC_3rd-Edition_Competition-Report.pdf">20% faster</a> than females. No amount of determination or additional hours of training can erase the physical advantages that Title IX recognized when it created separate athletic categories in the first place.
This is why the Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/2026/01/15/scotus-snapshot-womens-sports/">upcoming decisions</a> on Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. regarding women&#8217;s sports matters so much.
At its core, the question before the Court is not whether every individual deserves dignity and respect. They do. The question is whether female athletes will continue to be a protected category in which success is determined by talent, discipline, and hard work rather than by biological advantages.
When Congress passed Title IX in 1972, lawmakers understood that equal opportunity did not mean identical treatment. Women&#8217;s sports were created precisely because sex-based differences matter in athletic competition. Without separate categories, female athletes would lose opportunities to compete, earn scholarships, win championships, and break records.
That reality has not changed. Therefore, the Supreme Court should easily be able to come to a unanimous conclusion — biological reality does exist.
Supporters of allowing biological males to compete in women&#8217;s sports often frame the issue as one of inclusion. But inclusion cannot come at the expense of fairness. Asking female athletes to surrender opportunities that Title IX was designed to protect is not advancing women&#8217;s rights — it is diminishing them.
For years, many female athletes have remained silent because speaking out carries consequences. We have been told that raising concerns about fairness makes us intolerant or discriminatory. Yet the very existence of women&#8217;s sports is based on recognizing <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IWLC_3rd-Edition_Competition-Report.pdf">biological differences</a>. Defending that principle is not discrimination. It is the foundation of women&#8217;s athletics.
To me, Title IX means opportunity, equality, and empowerment. Through track, I found my confidence, developed leadership skills, and discovered my voice. I am forever grateful for the protections this law provides, ensuring that women like me can thrive both on and off the field.
As we celebrate another year of Title IX, we should remember why the law was necessary in the first place. Women fought for decades to gain access to athletic opportunities. They fought for scholarships, facilities, coaching resources, and the chance to compete against one another on fair terms.
Those hard-won gains deserve protection.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reaffirm a simple principle: women deserve their own space in sports. Not because we are less capable, but because equal opportunity requires fair competition.
That was the promise of Title IX 54 years ago. It should remain a promise we keep.
***
Linnea Saltz is an Independent Women ambassador and former NCAA track and field athlete. During her time at Southern Utah University, she was forced to compete against the first male athlete in Division I cross country.

abhernandez0530

I Am A Woman Who Had To Compete Against A Man And It’s Anything But Fair Play

College sports

Women's sports

For the second consecutive year, controversy has surrounded the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) girls’ track and field state championships because a biological male claimed several state titles. Last year, due to a pilot policy implemented by the CIF, the transgender athlete shared the highest spot on the podium with the top female finisher(s). Naturally, the CIF’s attempt at appeasement backfired, provoking the ire of parties on both sides of the issue.
Why would supporters of the transgender athlete take umbrage with CIF’s policy when he was not only allowed to compete under his adopted gender identity but also take home hardware? Because it is not actually about participation. It is, however, about advancing queer theory and a far-Left ideology into every aspect of American life, including youth sports.
Even though proponents claim that their position is about “inclusivity” and “fairness,” the real agenda is the forced acceptance and affirmation of a transgender athlete’s chosen gender. If everyone doesn’t agree that “trans women are women,” it’s hateful. As they see it, any rule or small measure taken that explicitly or implicitly reinforces biological reality invalidates and erases the trans individual’s claimed identity — this is why we hear phrases like “trans genocide” being used to describe America.
This explains why there is outrage from the transgender athlete’s family, supporters, and activists over the CIF’s policy.
While the girls’ California track and field championships drew major headlines, the West Virginia transgender athlete at the center of the U.S. Supreme Court case <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/west-virginia-v-b-p-j-2-2/">West Virginia v. B.P.J.</a> also received national coverage after <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/outkick-sports/trans-athlete-center-supreme-court-title-ix-case-wins-girls-track-field-state-championship">dominating</a> his female opponents en route to a state title. The biological male threw the shot put two feet farther than the top female finisher, a massive performance gap by the sport&#8217;s metrics.
Ironically, the West Virginia teen’s attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued in January that their client, a male, has no physiological differences or competitive advantages compared to females.
Unfortunately, the ACLU’s argument is rooted in ideological virtue signaling intended to advance a radical Left-wing agenda. It is absurd that society has to rely on scientific research and data to reinforce what humans have understood for thousands of years. Yet here we are in 2026 debating whether male athletes have an advantage over biological females.
If you happen to be confused about this matter, I can assure you that after spending a quarter century coaching male and female athletes from junior high to NCAA Division I, there is a verifiable difference in athletic ability and performance between the two sexes.
But regardless of how much data and common sense we inject into the cultural fray, those who are committed to the transgender cause are not going to stop pushing for policies that allow males to compete against females or to have access to female-only spaces. Today, it is a single biological male athlete here or there, but if this intrusion is not stopped, girls&#8217; athletics teams across the country will feature multiple males who claim to be female.
In fact, the Department of Education recently sent a warning letter to Jefferson County Public Schools in Colorado over <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/outkick-sports/trump-admin-cracks-colorado-school-district-allegedly-put-61-males-girls-sports-teams">allegations</a> that the district allowed more than 60 males to compete on female teams.
Within the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will release its decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. Hopefully, the outcome will help stop this madness. I am convinced there are school districts that would welcome the legal clarity to restrict males to male sports.
No female athlete should be forced to compete against a biological male or have to share a state or national championship podium with one.
Unfortunately, proponents of transgender athletes are not going to go away quietly.
Which is why parents, school leaders, coaches, and community members need to demand a return to common sense and reject the far-Left, radical queer theory-based ideology colonizing sports and education.
***
Rhyen Staley is a researcher for Defending Education. He holds a master&#8217;s degree in elementary education and has over a decade of classroom experience in both public and private schools. He has over 25 years of coaching experience from junior high to Division I.

Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Hilton Joins a Anti-Trans Portest Ahead Of California Primary Election

Allowing Boys To Compete Against Girls Isn’t Sport, It’s A Losing Game

This Saturday, AB Hernandez will compete at the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) state preliminaries, one more win away from the state finals. The girls lining up beside him have trained for years for this moment. Some of them have been training their whole lives. And the thing that strikes me is that I know exactly what it feels like to watch that work become irrelevant because an institution decided it did not matter.
Hernandez is fresh from a clean sweep in all three jumping events at the CIF Southern Section finals, winning the high jump, long jump, and triple jump against the top girls in Southern California. Photos of the medal ceremony went viral, and you can see why. The CIF implemented a &#8220;pilot program&#8221; that awarded any female athlete who finished behind Hernandez a one-spot promotion, meaning some girls shared the podium&#8217;s top spot with him; two first-place plaques were awarded for one first-place finish. California&#8217;s solution to the male athletic advantage is not to address the advantage. It is to redefine the word &#8220;winner.&#8221;
Here is what that pilot program cannot fix. It cannot give back to the girls who finished 2nd through 4th their actual placement. It cannot give the girl who would have placed first a solo podium moment she earned. It cannot undo the fact that Hernandez, a high school student competing in a California sectional meet, posted results that would have medaled in two events at the 1960 OLYMPICS. His long jump of 20&#8217;4.75&#8243; converts to 6.22 meters. The bronze medal at Rome that year went to a woman who jumped 6.21. His high jump of 1.78 meters places him above the mark that earned a silver medal among the best female athletes on the planet. A kid competing at a California high school track meet is clearing marks that would have put him on an Olympic podium against some of the greatest women in the history of the sport. These are not girls&#8217; high school results. They are elite women&#8217;s Olympic results, being posted against teenagers in a sectional final. No participation trophy reshuffles that math.
It is time to be honest about what happened to my teammates and me on the University of Pennsylvania swim team, and what is happening now to girls in California who have no more power to change it than we did. We were told that men in women’s sports was non-negotiable. These girls are being told the same thing, just with nicer packaging. A co-championship ribbon is still a consolation prize. Calling it &#8220;equity&#8221; does not change what it is.
Governor Gavin Newsom&#8217;s office put out a statement last week calling the outcry from distressed parents a &#8220;cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids.&#8221; The people holding &#8220;Save Girls’ Sports&#8221; signs at that meet are not there because they want to vilify anyone. They are there because their daughters trained through 5 a.m. practices, sacrificed weekends, and poured years into a shot at a podium that is now being handed to someone with a Y chromosome. That is not vilification. That is a mother at a track meet, watching her daughter lose something real, and being told by the governor of California that the problem is her attitude. California passed Assembly Bill 1266 in 2013 and has had over a decade to watch exactly what happens when male athletes compete in female divisions. The results are not ambiguous.
The CIF preliminaries are this Saturday. If Hernandez advances, the state finals begin May 29 in Clovis. Every girl in those jumping events has a name, a personal record, and a coach who believed in her. None of them chose to compete in this situation. None of them has a governor going to bat for them. What they have is a &#8220;pilot program&#8221; and a shared podium, and the quiet, maddening knowledge that the institution responsible for protecting their competitive opportunities decided that was good enough.
It is not good enough. It was not good enough for my competitors and me when we were forced to compete alongside an elite biological male, and it is not good enough in California. They just keep finding new girls to lie to.
***
Paula Scanlan is a senior fellow at American Principles Project and a former member of the UPenn women’s swim team.

Gavin Newsom Wants Your Daughters To Lose

California

Gavin Newsom

High school sports

The International Olympic Committee announced on Thursday that men who identify as women cannot compete in any female Olympic event, with implementation of the rule beginning at the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles.
The committee called its decision &#8220;evidence-based and expert-informed,&#8221; adding that keeping men out of women&#8217;s sports &#8220;protects fairness, safety and integrity in the female category.&#8221; The move came after the International Olympic Committee board conducted a nearly two-year review and discussed the issue with numerous medical experts.
&#8220;The scientific evidence is very clear: male chromosomes give performance advantage in sports that rely on strength, power, or endurance,&#8221; IOC President Kirsty Coventry said. &#8220;At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat, so it&#8217;s absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports, it would simply not be safe.&#8221;
Coventry, who took over as the committee&#8217;s first female president last June, has long pushed to protect women&#8217;s sports. Coventry was a collegiate swimmer at Auburn and participated in  five Olympic Games from 2000 to 2016, representing her home country of Zimbabwe.
The committee&#8217;s announcement comes as it prepares for the 2028 Olympic Games in the United States, which is being planned in coordination with President Donald Trump. Trump signed an executive order last February on &#8220;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/">Keeping Men out of Women&#8217;s Sports</a>&#8221; and also <a href="https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/43703874/trump-bar-transgender-athletes-competing-women-sports">warned</a> the International Olympic Committee about allowing men to compete in women&#8217;s sports, saying, &#8220;America categorically rejects transgender lunacy.&#8221;
After the committee&#8217;s announcement on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt <a href="https://x.com/presssec/status/2037164376856105056?s=46">said</a>, &#8220;You cannot change your sex. President Trump&#8217;s Executive Order protecting women&#8217;s sports made this happen!&#8221;
To ensure that all athletes competing in women&#8217;s events are female, the International Olympic Committee will require an SRY gene screening, which Coventry said athletes would only be required to take once. The screening would be done through saliva, a cheek swab, or a blood sample.
&#8220;Based on scientific evidence, the IOC considers that the presence of the SRY gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development,&#8221; the committee said.
The committee said that any male athlete who identifies as a woman would only be qualified to compete in male categories or in events &#8220;that do not classify athletes by sex.&#8221;
In 2020, male weightlifter Laurel Hubbard became the first trans-identifying athlete to compete against women in the Olympic Games. Hubbard, who had previously competed in the men&#8217;s category at other weightlifting events before he began identifying as a woman, represented New Zealand at the 2020 Games in Tokyo, where he failed to medal.
Then at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, Algerian boxer Imane Khelif dominated in the women&#8217;s welterweight division and took home a gold medal despite failing multiple gender tests. Khelif <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/boxer-who-dominated-women-during-2024-olympics-admits-to-having-male-gene">admitted</a> last month that he has the SRY gene and that he took hormones to lower his testosterone levels before competing in the Olympics.
The committee&#8217;s move was praised by female athletes and women&#8217;s sports advocates. Kim Jones and Marshi Smith, former decorated athletes and founders of the Independent Council on Women’s Sports, said Thursday&#8217;s announcement &#8220;marks a return of female sport to elite female athletes in Olympic competition and reaffirms the importance of fairness, safety, and equal opportunity worldwide.&#8221;
Jones and Smith also called on the NCAA &#8220;to follow suit.&#8221;
Professional soccer player Elizabeth Eddy, who was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-charlie-kirk-inspired-a-pro-soccer-player-to-speak-out-for-women-in-final-season">interviewed</a> about protecting women&#8217;s sports by The Daily Wire earlier this week, <a href="https://x.com/elizabetheddy2/status/2037171097318445325?s=20">said</a> the International Olympic Committee&#8217;s decision shows that &#8220;the tides are turning.&#8221;
&#8220;Precedent has been set from the top, and leagues around the world, including American pro sports, should follow,&#8221; Eddy added.

FRANCE-PARIS-OLY-ATHLETICS-4X100M RELAY-WOMEN

Olympics Set New Trans Policy Ahead Of Summer Games

International Olympic Committee Drops Major Ruling On Men In Women's Sports Ahead Of 2028 L.A. Games

Donald Trump

Olympics

It was the Sunday after Charlie Kirk was assassinated last fall. Professional soccer player Elizabeth Eddy was at church with her now-husband. The two attend church regularly, so while it wasn’t Kirk’s assassination that got them in the church pews, it was that tragedy that became the subject of the preacher’s sermon that day.
The preacher told the congregation that the attack on Kirk was an attack on free speech. It was that sermon that nudged Eddy, after 10 years in the National Women’s Soccer League, to speak up about a part of women’s soccer that she saw being jeopardized by the lie that men can compete as women—so in her final season, she spoke up.
“It&#8217;s like, this is way bigger than my playing career,” Eddy told The Daily Wire. “This is like, changing the landscape of women&#8217;s soccer at the professional level, which sets a precedent for all other women&#8217;s sports in America.”
Eddy announced her retirement from the NWSL on Tuesday knowing she gave her all to the league as a player both on and off the pitch.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After months of consideration and prayer, I have a special announcement to make. 😊 <a href="https://t.co/03ii9LyfTi">pic.twitter.com/03ii9LyfTi</a>
— Elizabeth Eddy (@elizabetheddy2) <a href="https://twitter.com/elizabetheddy2/status/2036553794373210317?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2026</a></blockquote>
It’s ironic that the toughest test of her career would end up happening outside the lines, and in the headlines. After penning a piece in the New York Post on protecting women’s spaces, and even suggesting creating new spaces for trans-identifying players, Eddy was labeled a “racist” and “transphobe” by her Angel FC teammates.
These teammates weren’t just players on the roster; they were Eddy’s friends—close friends, actually, already invited to Eddy’s upcoming wedding. After Eddy stood for biological truth, they didn’t attend.
“It was like, pretty personal, and one of them even helped my fiancé plan our engagement,” Eddy said. “It was really tough, but like, at the end of the day, I need to answer to God, not to my peers or my success level on earth or whoever else I might want to please.”
“Although I&#8217;m hurt, I&#8217;m holding out hope that one day we can have reconciliation.”
The pushback was painful, but Eddy has no regrets about her statements on women&#8217;s sports. As she looks to her post-soccer chapter, she plans to continue advocating for women to have opportunities to play in a protected category.
“I&#8217;d love to have like a bunch of kids, a bunch of boys and girls, and I want the girls to have a chance to compete and play versus having an uneven playing field from the get-go because they&#8217;re a girl,” Eddy said. “I was like, if I have any ability to affect that, I will happily spend time and effort to do that because again, people have paved the way for all of us girls in America. For example, Title IX and now that is kind of under question. I was recently in D.C. at the Supreme Court on the steps doing the part of this rally and speaking about Title IX, and that’s where I realized how fragile the current policies are and how important it is to actually engage in how to shape the policies for the future.”
In addition to her advocacy for women, Eddy is continuing to compete—trading her shin guards for surfboards. The Newport Beach, California, native grew up hitting the waves and, now that her schedule allows, she’s excited to pursue a solo sport that she says is a different kind of challenge, channeling her “competitive energy” into a “flowy state” on the water.
“I just got back actually three weeks ago from my first pro-surfing contest. It was in Barbados and it was for the World Surf League. Although I got out in the first round, I was like, this is like the coolest thing ever,” Eddy said.
She’s excited to still be a professional athlete who is actively in the fight for women’s sports. She was a utility player on the soccer pitch, meaning she could play multiple positions. Now she’ll have multiple career obligations, which include public speaking, plus a full surfing schedule. The chaos, she says, will be worth the extra work because Eddy firmly believes the more female athletes stand up for their sports, the quicker their category will be protected.
“I was completely delegitimized by how my soccer team responded and the league,” Eddy said. “So then it&#8217;s like, when the next person speaks up, they probably won&#8217;t get as delegitimized, and then a few more might speak up and it will snowball. We&#8217;re moving in a really good direction, and the more people that speak up and the sooner they do it, the better it is for all of our daughters in the future.”
It was Eddy&#8217;s faith that gave her the courage to speak out in the first place, and it’s still her faith that guides her decision-making as the veteran soccer player boldly takes on her next chapter.
“God is not changing,” Eddy said. “He&#8217;s faithful yesterday, he’s faithful today, and faithful tomorrow.&#8221;

Credit: Elizabeth Eddy/ Sean M. Haffey via Getty Images

How Charlie Kirk Inspired A Pro Soccer Player To Speak Out For Women In Final Season

Elizabeth Eddy

Social Issues

Sports

U.S.

Women's Soccer

Brooke Slusser took a stand for women in college sports. Now she&#8217;s the victim of vicious online attacks.
In a recent interview with <a href="https://x.com/JackThompsonFOX/status/2030652503356854736?s=20">Fox News</a>, the former San Jose State Volleyball player expressed shock at the hate and vitriol coming out now for simply saying she was not comfortable sharing a bed with a man as a college athlete. The attacks come years after Slusser joined the lawsuit against the NCAA, where she publicly spoke about her experience playing alongside Blaire Fleming, a biological male on the SJSU women&#8217;s volleyball team.
&#8220;I honestly think what struck the biggest nerve is this is really the first time I&#8217;ve like sat and talked about just kind of like a day to day point of view, like, yes, we were good friends, like we&#8217;d share very like intimate details about each of our lives, like that&#8217;s a normal roommate tendencies do in a girl&#8217;s apartment,&#8221; Slusser told The Daily Wire.
<div id="attachment_1057909" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1057909" class="size-large wp-image-1057909" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Untitled-design-32-864x576.png" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Untitled-design-32-864x576.png 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Untitled-design-32-300x200.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Untitled-design-32-768x512.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Untitled-design-32.png 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Credit: Brooke Slusser</div>
Since the interview earlier this week, Slusser has been called a &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/Brocklesnitch/status/2030881342385537472?s=20">b*tch</a>&#8221; and a &#8220;transphobe right-wing <a href="https://x.com/druidDUDE/status/2031021289440178594?s=20">grifter</a>&#8221; among other attacks for simply speaking the truth.
&#8220;Someone texted me and was like, &#8216;I love you so much, I hope you&#8217;re doing ok,&#8217; and that usually means that&#8217;s usually how I find out something&#8217;s going on about me on the internet,&#8221; Slusser said of the attacks.
Slusser believed her coaches, support staff, and San Jose State admin when they told her Blaire was a girl. Slusser shared beds with the biological man on team trips and lived together for two seasons. Slusser said she was blindsided by the news that she had been living with a man, even though, in hindsight, she said things seemed off.
&#8220;His doors were always locked, that&#8217;s what I remember, because like I said, we were all very good friends, and so it&#8217;s very normal for girls just to like barge into each other&#8217;s rooms unannounced,&#8221; Slusser said. &#8220;We always had to knock, and I just thought that was weird, but I was like, if a person likes their privacy, I&#8217;m not gonna be the one to push a button.&#8221;
Slusser refuses to focus on the hate. Instead, she&#8217;s driven to ensure other girls don&#8217;t live through the experience of playing and living with a man disguised as a woman, which Slusser described as &#8220;hell.&#8221; Slusser said her coach, Todd Kress, never told Slusser her roommate was a man, and once news broke about Fleming&#8217;s biology, Kress encouraged his team to stay quiet.
&#8220;They gaslit us so much, and the fact that like, if we spoke on this at all, even with like close family and friends, our scholarship would be in jeopardy,&#8221; Slusser said.
In January, the Office of Civil Rights found San Jose State violated Title IX because of its handling of the trans-identifying volleyball player. The Trump admin said that if the university complied with a list of conditions, the university wouldn&#8217;t be punished. Instead of complying, like Penn did last year, SJSU and the California State University system decided to sue the federal government.
SJSU President Dr.Cynthia Teniente-Matson released this <a href="https://blogs.sjsu.edu/newsroom/2026/ocr-titleix-lawsuit/">statement</a> on March 6 regarding the lawsuit:
&#8220;This is not a step we take lightly. However, we have a responsibility to defend the integrity of our institution and the rule of law, while ensuring that every member of our community is treated fairly and in accordance with the law. Our position is simple: We have followed the law and cannot be punished for doing so. OCR has faulted us for following decisions from federal courts that bound SJSU; OCR has no authority to do that. We are asking the court to set aside OCR’s Letter of Findings and Proposed Resolution Agreement and prevent the Department of Education from terminating, freezing, or refusing to grant SJSU’s federal funding.&#8221;
Slusser called her institution&#8217;s decision &#8220;blood-boiling.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s mostly SJSU that needs to be held accountable,&#8221; Slusser said. &#8220;I achieved the dream of playing collegiate sports, and the last year I had was completely ruined. You can&#8217;t get that back.&#8221;
During Slusser&#8217;s senior season in 2024, eight of San Jose State&#8217;s wins came from forfeits because other collegiate programs refused to play against a male. In the Mountain West Conference alone, Boise State, Wyoming, Utah State, and Nevada forfeited seven matches against SJSU. Slusser thought the nationwide pushback would address the issue, but she was proved wrong.
&#8220;I was still trusting of Todd, my head coach, and I asked what happens if we just removed this one person and played as women, and he just cussed me out. I was like, oh, ok, that&#8217;s how we feel about this.&#8221;
The 23-year-old is fighting alongside Riley Gaines as the two are part of a lawsuit against the NCAA. Slusser said it&#8217;s progressing well despite both the NCAA and Mountain West conference attempts to appeal.
The slurs thrown Slusser&#8217;s way for speaking up thankfully don&#8217;t get her down. Even if they did, she said she would never stop standing up for women.
&#8220;If I passed this up and had kids in sports later on and saw them going through what I did when I knew I could change it and didn&#8217;t, I would literally kick myself.&#8221;
&#8220;I just think people need to know you can stand up and nothing is gonna happen to you.&#8221;
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;"><iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/eUUN2WGlnKVVtZzdWoJ5BId9fbPz6LQW?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=479d302d-88c9-49ce-ba13-bfb3380ce0c7&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-03-11%3A%20Former%20Teammate%20Of%20Trans%20Volleyball%20Player&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F9312af9f-399c-4e2b-bef4-be6fd42c2e7a.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

Credit: Andrew Wevers/Getty Images

She Stood Up For Women In College Sports. Now She’s The Victim Of Vicious Online Attacks.

'Feminists' Attack Woman Who Was Forced To Room With Biological Male Teammate

News

San Jose State University was hit with a Title IX violation by the United States Department of Education after an investigation found that the school&#8217;s women&#8217;s volleyball team kept a male player on its roster from 2022 to 2024.
The university is now saying it&#8217;s &#8220;reviewing&#8221; the Education Department&#8217;s findings.
In a statement to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/sjsu-responds-trump-admin-probe-found-university-violated-title-ix-trans-volleyball-player">Fox News</a>, San Jose State University said: &#8220;San Jose State, a member of the California State University system, received notification from the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights regarding its investigation into athletics participation on our past women’s volleyball teams. The Department informed the University of the outcome of its investigation and its findings. The University is in the process of reviewing the Department’s findings and proposed resolution agreement. We remain committed to providing a safe, respectful, and inclusive educational environment for all students while complying with applicable laws and regulations.&#8221;
The statement comes after the Department of Education concluded its investigation into the school on Wednesday.
&#8220;The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that San José State University (SJSU) violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX),&#8221; the department said in a statement. &#8220;OCR concluded that SJSU’s policies allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.&#8221;
Blaire Fleming is a male who played on the women&#8217;s volleyball team at San Jose State. Fleming played both indoor and beach volleyball. Fleming&#8217;s background became news after multiple <a href="https://reduxx.info/exclusive-biological-male-quietly-joined-womens-ncaa-division-i-volleyball-at-san-jose-state-university/">outlets</a> reported SJSU allegedly tried to hide Fleming&#8217;s sex from teammates, coaches, and opponents.
The Office of Civil Rights said that the cover-up forced female athletes on San Jose&#8217;s volleyball team to share locker rooms and hotel rooms with a male.
In addition to the privacy concerns, there were also alarming safety concerns. The investigation alleges that Fleming spiked the ball so hard that it knocked women on the opposing team to the ground. During one season, seven all-women’s teams from other universities forfeited their competitions, accepting a loss rather than competing against a male.
When Fleming&#8217;s sex was made known to Brooke Slusser, the teammate of Fleming filed a lawsuit against the school and the NCAA for not informing her or her teammates that Fleming was a male. An assistant coach was suspended and not re-contracted after she filed a Title IX complaint over the school’s handling of the male player.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ncaa-volleyball-player-says-coaches-repeatedly-assigned-her-to-room-with-trans-player-at-his-request">NCAA Volleyball Player Says Coaches Repeatedly Assigned Her To Room With Trans Player At His Request</a>
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. United States Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said she will hold San Jose State accountable.
&#8220;San José State University caused significant harm to female athletes by allowing a male to compete on the women’s volleyball team— and when female athletes spoke out, SJSU retaliated,&#8221; McMahon said.
As a result of the university&#8217;s noncompliance, the Department of Education is requiring a list of <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-finds-san-jose-state-university-violated-title-ix">actions</a> to be taken, including a public statement from SJSU saying the university will adopt biology-based definitions of the words &#8220;male&#8221; and &#8220;female.&#8221;  The school will also acknowledge that the sex of a human, male or female, is unchangeable, and send an apology to players who were on the volleyball and beach volleyball teams with Fleming and any players who refused to compete against Fleming. In the apology, the university has to express sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position.
San Jose State University has 10 days to comply or risk “imminent enforcement action.”
“We will not relent until SJSU is held to account for these abuses and commits to upholding Title IX to protect future athletes from the same indignities,&#8221; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said.

Credit: J. David Ake/Andrew Wevers via Getty Images

Trump Admin Hits University With Title IX Violation Over Male Athlete In Women’s Sports

The Department of Education referred its Minnesota transgender athletes investigation to the Justice Department on Monday, a major step toward pulling funding for the Democrat-run state&#8217;s education and high school sports agencies.
Minnesota has so far refused to negotiate with the Trump administration on the issue after the federal government found that the state violated Title IX by allowing boys to compete against girls. Now, Minnesota is close to losing its federal funding from the Education Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, The Daily Caller <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2026/01/26/minnesota-trump-administration-title-ix-education-department-health-human-services/">reported</a>. The DOJ referral comes as the Trump administration targets Minnesota in its immigration enforcement operation and over allegations of massive fraud.
&#8220;As Minnesota reels from a fraud scandal, @GovTimWalz is fighting to keep men in women’s sports,&#8221; Education Secretary Linda McMahon <a href="https://x.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/2015868775153782813">wrote</a> on X. &#8220;Now, he’ll have to make his case in court.&#8221;
The Education Department and HHS <a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-and-us-department-of-health-and-human-services-find-minnesota-violated-title-ix">said</a> last September that their investigation found the Minnesota State High School League was in violation of Title IX by allowing boys who identified as girls to compete against girls in high school sports. Minnesota was the center of a sports controversy last spring when a male pitcher <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/girls-softball-team-sparks-outrage-after-suspected-male-pitcher-leads-them-to-state-tournament">dominated</a> the girls&#8217; state softball tournament. The Trump administration also said that Minnesota allowed boys to compete against girls in Alpine skiing, Nordic skiing, lacrosse, track and field, and volleyball.
The Minnesota Department of Education has argued that Title IX &#8220;requires schools provide transgender students with the right to participate in…athletics in a manner consistent with their gender identity&#8221; and that “transgender and gender nonconforming students should be afforded the opportunity to use the restroom of their choice&#8221; &#8212; positions that directly contradict the Trump administration&#8217;s interpretation of the law.
“Despite repeated opportunities to comply with Title IX, Minnesota has chosen defiance – continuing to jeopardize the safety of women and girls, deny them fair competition, and erode their right to equal access in educational programs and activities,” McMahon told The Daily Caller.
&#8220;The Trump Administration will not stop until accountability is delivered for Minnesota’s students,” she added.
Minnesota leftist Attorney General Keith Ellison <a href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2025/04/22_EO_TitleIX.asp">sued</a> the Trump administration over the president&#8217;s executive order on keeping men out of women&#8217;s sports, arguing that the Trump administration is &#8220;bullying vulnerable children.&#8221; Ellison said last year that Trump does not have the authority to override Minnesota state law that allows trans-identifying athletes to compete in sports categories that match their gender identities.
Trump signed an executive order in February banning boys and men from competing against female athletes, threatening to strip federal funding from states that don’t obey the order. The Trump administration has also gone after Maine and California for violating Title IX protections for women and girls.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz

Trump Admin Moves Closer To Yanking Federal Funding For Minnesota Over Trans Athletes Probe

Department of Education

Minnesota

Transgender

Trump Administration

Menu