2026年6月30日22:23:31.507 UTC / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/transgender-athletes-supreme-court-decision-what-to-know
最高法院周二维持了各州禁止跨性别学生参加女子运动队的禁令，这对跨性别青年及其家庭来说又是一次重大挫折，该裁决可能会让全美约一半州的类似法律继续有效。
在保守派多数派以6票对3票的投票结果、自由派大法官持反对意见的情况下，法院裁定西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州通过的禁令并未违反宪法平等保护条款，且全体大法官一致认为该禁令并未违反联邦反歧视法。
这两起诉讼由跨性别高中生、西弗吉尼亚州某中学田径队选手贝基·佩珀-杰克逊，以及博伊西州立大学大四学生林赛·赫科克斯提起。
以下是关于最高法院在这起堪称今年最重要的文化战争争议案中的裁决，你需要了解的内容。
最高法院以6票对3票分裂的裁决的核心要点是，禁止跨性别女孩参加女子运动队的规定并未违反第十四修正案。
保守派多数派的代表大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺认为，涉案法律基于生理性别做出区分，这在宪法框架下是被允许的。
“为生理男性和生理女性分别设立运动队是合理的：鉴于两性之间固有的生理差异，仅允许生理女性参加女子运动队，可以降低身体受伤风险并确保公平竞争，”卡瓦诺写道。
这一裁决是保守派占6比3多数的最高法院又一次允许各州自行决定跨性别权利的案例，这一结果几乎肯定会给其他保守派州带来政治压力，促使它们继续打压跨性别群体近年来取得的权益进展。
至少，最高法院已经明确表示，只要法律以“生理性别”为依据，而非明确针对跨性别者，就会认可各州出台有损跨性别美国人权益的法律。
最高法院多次表现出对平等保护条款为跨性别美国人提供更强民权保护的怀疑，包括去年它曾表示各州可以限制跨性别未成年人的性别确认医疗护理。
最高法院就体育问题做出广泛裁决的举动遭到了法庭三名自由派大法官的强烈反对，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官写道，多数派“严重”错误地驳回了杰克逊针对西弗吉尼亚州法律提出的宪法诉求。她表示，她的裁决依据是诉讼中存在持续的事实争议，这些争议本可能最终导致不同的判决结果。
“西弗吉尼亚州或许确实完成了举证责任，其禁令得以维持，”她写道。“关键在于，本院的平等保护先例要求对（杰克逊的）诉求采取与多数派今日所遵循的截然不同的处理方式。”
“当法院面临具有宪法层面重要意义的重大裁决时，基于所有相关事实的克制态度尤为必要，”索托马约尔写道。
或许最高法院裁决中最令人意外的部分并非跨性别学生败诉，而是法院的自由派大法官们认定，这些限制并未违反《第九章》——一部旨在打击接受联邦资助学校内性别歧视的数十年历史的联邦法律。
这一结果与保守派多数派在几乎所有提交至法院的涉及跨性别美国人的案件中的裁决方向一致。
代表佩珀-杰克逊的美国公民自由联盟律师约书亚·布洛克向CNN表示，这一裁决“对那些只想拥有与其他女孩同等机会的跨性别女孩来说，是毁灭性的决定。”
一年前，在另一起备受瞩目的实质性裁决中，最高法院6比3的多数派维持了田纳西州禁止为未成年人提供跨性别医疗护理的法律。该裁决也助力了全美20多个州出台禁令，禁止为寻求性别过渡以匹配其性别认同的未成年人提供青春期阻断剂、激素疗法及其他治疗手段。
从这个意义上说，最高法院的裁决让美国分裂为两类州：一类打压跨性别权利，另一类则允许这些权利蓬勃发展。最高法院明确表示，它认为立法机构最适合处理复杂且往往极具个人色彩的性别问题。
在联邦层面，最高法院去年春季允许特朗普政府实施禁止跨性别者参军的政策。该案是在法院的紧急审理程序中作出裁决的。同年11月，最高法院允许特朗普政府要求美国护照上标注旅行者出生时的性别，而非其性别认同。
去年秋季，法院的立场有所不同，驳回了南卡罗来纳州要求强制执行禁止跨性别学生使用符合其性别认同的学校浴室的紧急请求。
未来几年，跨性别权利几乎肯定会继续成为最高法院审理议程中的重要议题。在本届任期的最后几天，最高法院同意审理华盛顿州家长提起的上诉案，他们试图挑战该州法律，该法律允许离家出走的未成年人在未经父母通知的情况下接受跨性别医疗护理。
最高法院的三名自由派大法官与多数派一致认为，另一项名为《第九章》的联邦反歧视法律并未禁止各州禁止跨性别女孩参加体育赛事。但这是因为各方均同意，《第九章》允许学校按性别划分运动队。
“在这一点上，”索托马约尔代表自由派阵营写道，“佩珀-杰克逊的诉求无法成立，因为《第九章》允许这种性别区分。”
即便最高法院维持了各州的体育禁令，卡瓦诺的意见可能有助于加强跨性别美国人起诉政府行为者歧视的其他案件。
卡瓦诺指出，这些法律构成基于性别的歧视，这在宪法下是允许的——但前提是各州能够证明这种歧视“与重要的政府利益实质性相关”。这意味着，各州若想限制跨性别权利，不能仅仅出于任何理由就这么做——它们必须达到更高的司法审查标准，才能让其政策获得联邦法院的批准。
法院表示，西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州的法律得以保留，因为它们满足了这一更高标准。
“但其他针对跨性别个体的歧视，从浴室政策到兵役，是否也能达到这一更高标准，还有待未来的案件审理，”CNN最高法院分析师、乔治城大学法学院教授史蒂夫·弗拉德克说道。
“这仍是平等权利倡导者的重大损失——但至少为未来对政府针对跨性别个体的其他歧视行为提出质疑打开了大门，”弗拉德克补充道。
经常使用和解性语言的卡瓦诺，在其29页意见书的结尾以富有同情心的口吻，试图缓和裁决的打击力度。
“全国各地涉及跨性别体育争议的生理女性和跨性别学生运动员大多是青少年或二十岁出头的年轻人。这些学生运动员想要参加体育运动。他们想要竞争的愿望值得尊重，”卡瓦诺写道，他多年来一直担任女儿们篮球队的教练。
“无论属于争议双方中的哪一方，没有任何学生运动员——无论生理女性还是跨性别者——应该被排斥或诋毁，”他继续说道。
这番话让人回想起六年前卡瓦诺表达过的类似情感，当时最高法院作出了一项具有里程碑意义的裁决，将民权保护扩展到LGBTQ劳动者。卡瓦诺在那场争议中处于落败一方，但在阐明他对法院裁决的反对意见时，他指出了近年来男女同性恋美国人取得的社会和政治进步。
“他们展现出了非凡的远见、韧性和勇气——在立法和司法领域，更不用说在日常生活中，常常与重重困难作斗争，”他在2020年写道。“他们提出了强有力的政策论点，可以为今日的结果感到自豪。”
https://www.cnn.com/
“这是常识的巨大胜利”：西弗吉尼亚州总检察长就最高法院关于跨性别运动员的裁决发表回应
但周二，索托马约尔驳斥了卡瓦诺的表态是虚伪的。
“多数派的意见书最后列举了体育运动对年轻人有多方面的宝贵价值，”她写道。“由于法院今日的裁决，西弗吉尼亚州和任何其他州政府机构，仅仅因为认为跨性别女孩具有天生的体育优势，就可以剥夺（杰克逊）和其他像她一样的女孩参与这些活动的机会，即便事实证明她们并没有这种优势。”
值得注意的是，最高法院的裁决并未触及各州是否可以合法允许跨性别女性和女孩按照其性别认同参加运动队这一棘手问题。
在一个涉及该问题的脚注中，卡瓦诺明确表示，“本意见书无意决定这一问题。”
这一裁决让各州可以自由地按照自己的意愿立法规范这一问题。根据运动推进项目的数据，目前全美约有一半的州允许跨性别运动员按照其性别认同参加比赛。
同样，卡瓦诺写道，法院此次并未处理顺性别女性能否参加男子或男女混合运动队的问题。
反对跨性别运动员参赛的保守派议员和反跨性别活动人士可能会因此受到鼓舞，推动在尚未出台相关禁令的州实施禁令。
“为什么德克萨斯州的女孩应该拥有与康涅狄格州或纽约州的女孩不同的权利？”曾在宾夕法尼亚大学与跨性别游泳运动员利亚·托马斯同场竞技的宝拉·斯坎伦在福克斯新闻节目中说道。
斯坎伦是呼吁国会通过全国性跨性别女性参加女子体育赛事禁令的人士之一。今年早些时候，弗吉尼亚州共和党众议员约翰·麦奎尔提出了“莱利·盖恩斯法案”，该法案以这位活动人士、前游泳运动员的名字命名，在反对托马斯的立场后，她已成为保守派反跨性别运动的前沿人物。托马斯是首位赢得NCAA Division I冠军的跨性别运动员。
但CNN体育分析师、《今日美国》专栏作家克里斯汀·布伦南表示，许多禁令影响的是本可以从体育运动的社交、身体和精神层面获益良多的学龄儿童。
“现在体育界需要权衡利弊，确保不会将精英级别以下的儿童排除在通过体育运动学习人生课程的机会之外，”布伦南告诉CNN的沃尔夫·布里泽。
https://www.cnn.com/
特朗普对LGBTQ社区的承诺历史
围绕跨性别运动员的讨论变得复杂的一个原因是，缺乏关于跨性别运动员占比的可靠数据，无论是在休闲青少年体育领域还是竞争激烈的国际赛事中。这导致双方倡导团体做出了范围广泛且往往相互矛盾的估计。
然而，在竞争最激烈的领域，数据显示跨性别人群仅占参赛运动员的极小一部分，且极少获得顶级奖项。
自2003年国际奥委会开始允许跨性别和非二元性别运动员公开参赛以来，仅有不到12人获得参赛资格。其中大多数人按照其出生时被指派的性别参赛，选择放弃激素替代疗法以获得参赛资格。仅有一名公开身份的跨性别女性——新西兰举重运动员劳雷尔·哈伯德获得了奥运会参赛资格，但她未能完成任何一次举重试举。
NCAA主席查理·贝克2024年在参议院作证时表示，他知道联赛中“不到10名”跨性别运动员——这一数字占其运动员总数的比例不到0.002%。
而在更低年龄段，加州大学洛杉矶分校法学院智库威廉姆斯研究所估计，多达12.2万名13至17岁的跨性别青少年可能参加高中体育赛事。但目前尚不清楚其中有多少人按照其性别认同参加比赛，因为他们中的许多人 presumably 生活在已出台禁令的州。
“我真的为所有无法和朋友一起参加体育运动的年轻孩子感到难过，”前职业冰球运动员、Netflix剧集《激烈竞争》演员哈里森·布朗告诉CNN。
布朗补充道：“在热爱的运动中做真实的自己，是每个人都应拥有的权利。”
Supreme Court upholds transgender sports bans: What to know and what’s next
2026-06-30T22:23:31.507Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/transgender-athletes-supreme-court-decision-what-to-know
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state bans on transgender students playing on girls sports teams, delivering another blockbuster setback to trans youth and their families in a decision that is likely to sustain similar laws in about half of the nation.
In a 6-3 decision over the dissent of the court’s liberals, the conservative majority ruled that the bans enacted by West Virginia and Idaho do not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and the court unanimously agreed it did not run afoul of a federal anti-discrimination law.
The lawsuits were filed by Becky Pepper-Jackson, a West Virginia high school student who is transgender and who competes on her school’s track team, and Lindsay Hecox, a senior at Boise State University.
Here’s what to know about the court’s decision in what was arguably its most important culture war dispute of the year.
The central element of the Supreme Court’s decision, which divided the court 6-3, was that the bans on transgender girls competing on girls sports teams did not run afoul of the 14th Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh reasoned that the laws at issue made a distinction based on biological sex, and that was permitted under the Constitution.
“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The ruling marked the latest instance in which the 6-3 conservative court has let states sort out transgender rights for themselves, an outcome that will almost certainly put political pressure on other conservative states to continue to clamp down on gains the transgender community had made in recent years.
At the very least, the court has made clear that it will entertain state laws that work against transgender Americans as long as those laws are focused on “biological sex” rather than explicitly aimed at trans people.
The high court has repeatedly appeared doubtful that the equal protection clause provides stronger civil rights protections to trans Americans, including when it said last year that states could restrict gender identity care for trans minors.
The court’s decision to issue a broad ruling on the sports issue drew fierce pushback from the three liberal members of the bench, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the majority “badly” erred by not allowing the constitutional claims raised by Jackson against West Virginia’s law to proceed. She said her decision was anchored in the fact that there was an ongoing factual dispute in the litigation that could have ultimately led to a different outcome.
“West Virginia may well have satisfied its burden and seen its ban upheld,” she wrote. “The point, rather, is that this court’s equal protection precedents require a very different approach to (Jackson’s) claim than the one the majority follows today.”
“A restrained approach, based on all relevant facts, is particularly necessary when the court is faced with a consequential decision of constitutional dimension,” Sotomayor wrote.
Perhaps the most surprising element of the court’s decision was not that the transgender students lost, but rather that the court’s liberals concluded that the restrictions do not violate Title IX, a decades-old federal law intended to combat sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funding.
The outcome tracked with the way the conservative majority has ruled in virtually every case dealing with trans Americans to reach its docket.
Joshua Block, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents Pepper-Jackson, described the ruling to CNN as “a devastating decision for transgender girls who just want to have the same opportunities that other girls do.”
A year ago, in another high-profile merits decision, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court let stand a Tennessee law banning transgender care for minors. That decision also bolstered laws in more than 20 states that banned puberty blockers, hormone therapy and other treatment for minors seeking to transition to match their gender identity.
In that sense, the court’s decisions have left the nation divided into one group of states that have clamped down on trans rights and another that have allowed them to flourish. The court has made clear it believes legislatures are best equipped to handle the complicated and often deeply personal questions of gender.
On the federal level, the court last spring allowed the Trump administration to enforce a ban on transgender service members in the military. That case was decided on the court’s emergency docket. In November, the court let the Trump administration require US passports to include a traveler’s sex at birth, rather than a person’s gender identity.
The court went the other way last fall, rejecting an emergency request from South Carolina to enforce a ban on transgender students using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
Transgender rights are almost certain to continue to feature prominently on the Supreme Court docket in comings years. In the final days of its term, the court agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Washington who are seeking to challenge state laws permitting runaway minors to receive transgender care without parental notice.
The court’s three-justice liberal wing got on board with the majority for the proposition that a separate anti-discrimination federal law known as Title IX did not bar the states from banning trans girls in sports. But that’s because all sides agreed that Title IX allows schools to split sports teams between the sexes.
“On this point,” Sotomayor wrote for the liberal bloc, “BPJ’s claim fails because Title IX allows this sex distinction.”
Even as the high court upheld the state sports bans, Kavanaugh’s opinion could help strengthen other cases brought by transgender Americans alleging discrimination by government actors.
Kavanaugh held that the laws amount to sex-based discrimination, which is permissible under the Constitution — but only if a state can demonstrate that such discrimination is “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” What that means is that states seeking to restrict transgender rights can’t just do so for any reason — they will have to meet a higher standard of judicial review in order to have policies cleared by federal courts.
The court said West Virginia and Idaho’s laws can remain intact because they met that higher standard.
“But whether other discrimination against transgender individuals, from bathrooms to military service, could also meet this higher standard remains to be litigated in future cases,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
“It’s still a significant loss for equality advocates – but one that opens the door to at least some skepticism of other governmental discrimination against transgender individuals going forward,” Vladeck added.
Kavanaugh, who often uses reconciliatory language, sought to soften the blow of his 29-page opinion by ending on a sympathetic note.
“Most of the biological female and transgender student-athletes who are involved in transgender sports disputes around the country are teenagers or in their early twenties. Those student athletes want to play sports. Their desire to compete warrants respect,” wrote Kavanaugh, who for years coached his daughters’ basketball teams.
“No student-athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified,” he continued.
The words recalled a similar sentiment Kavanaugh expressed six years ago when the court issued a landmark ruling that extended civil rights protections to LGBTQ workers. Kavanaugh was on the losing side of that dispute, but in spelling out his opposition to the court’s ruling, he pointed to the social and political progress achieved by gay and lesbian Americans in recent years.
“They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit – battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives,” he wrote in 2020. “They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.”
https://www.cnn.com/
‘A huge victory for common sense’: West Virginia Atty General reacts to Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes
But on Tuesday, Sotomayor dismissed Kavanaugh’s statements as insincere.
“The majority’s opinion ends by reciting the many wonderful ways in which playing sports can be valuable to young people,” she wrote. “Because of the court’s decision today, West Virginia, and any other state actor, can deny (Jackson) and others like her these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
Notably, the court’s decision did not touch thorny questions around whether states can lawfully permit trans women and girls to play on teams that match their gender identity.
In a footnote addressing that issue, Kavanaugh made clear that “nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question.”
That decision leaves states free to legislate around the issue however they see fit. About half the country currently allows trans athletes to compete on the team that matches their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project.
Similarly, Kavanaugh wrote, the court was not addressing at this time the question of whether cisgender women can compete on men’s or co-ed teams.
Conservative lawmakers and anti-trans activists who oppose trans athletes’ participation may be emboldened to push for bans in states where they do not already exist.
“Why should a girl in Texas have different rights than a girl in Connecticut or New York?” said Paula Scanlan, who swam alongside transgender swimmer Lia Thomas at the University of Pennsylvania, on Fox News.
Scanlan is among a group of people who have called on Congress to pass a national ban on trans women in girls sports. Earlier this year, Republican Rep. John McGuire of Virginia introduced the “Riley Gaines Act,” named after the activist and former swimmer who has emerged at the forefront of the conservative anti-trans movement after opposing Thomas’ position as the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I title.
But many bans impact school-aged children who could benefit greatly from the social, physical and mental aspects of athletics, CNN sports analyst and USA Today columnist Christine Brennan said.
“This is now the needle that the sports world is going to thread to make sure they do not exclude children well before the elite level from the opportunity to learn those life lessons playing sports,” Brennan told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
https://www.cnn.com/
Trump’s history of promises to the LGBTQ community
Complicating the conversation about transgender athletes is a lack of reliable data on how prevalent trans athletes are, whether in recreational youth sports or in cutthroat international competition. This has led advocacy groups on both sides to make wide-ranging and often conflicting estimates.
In the most competitive arenas, however, figures indicate that transgender people make up a sliver of participating athletes and rarely take top prizes.
Since the International Olympic Committee began permitting trans and nonbinary athletes to participate openly in 2003, fewer than a dozen have qualified. Most have competed on the team consistent with their gender assigned at birth, choosing to forgo hormone replacement therapy in order to qualify for competition. Only one out trans woman, New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, has qualified for the Olympics, and she failed to complete a single lift.
NCAA President Charlie Baker testified before the Senate in 2024 that he was aware of “less than 10” transgender athletes competing in the league – a number amounting to less than .002% of its athletes.
And in younger age groups, the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law, estimates that as many as 122,000trans youth age 13 to 17 could be participating in high school sports. It is unclear, however, how many play on the team that aligns with their gender identity, as many of them presumably live in states with bans in place.
“I just felt really devastated for all the young kids that are just not going to be able to play sports with their friends,” said Harrison Browne, a former professional hockey player and actor in the Netflix show “Heated Rivalry,” told CNN.
Browne added: “Being authentically yourself while playing the sport that you love is a right that everybody should have.”