What the Supreme Court’s Decision on Transgender Athletes Means for Trans People, Families, and Educators in Montana

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender women and girls from competing on women’s and girls’ athletic teams are constitutional. The court held that these laws do not violate either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Below are answers to what this Supreme Court decision means for transgender people, families, and educators in Montana.

How did the Supreme Court rule in West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox?

The Supreme Court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia that categorically ban transgender women and girls from competing on women’s and girls’ scholastic sports teams. The court held that excluding transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ sports teams did not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.

What does this mean for transgender students in MT?

For transgender students in Montana, the Supreme Court’s decision does not immediately change existing state law.

Montana’s House Bill 300 prohibits educational institutions from allowing transgender women and girls to participate in women and girls’ athletic programs. This applies to public schools K-12, colleges, and universities.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, that law remains enforceable.

What does this mean for transgender students’ access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and other school facilities in MT?

The court’s ruling specifically notes it only applies to the ability of transgender students to play on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity. The decision does not resolve the separate question of whether state laws or school policies can ban transgender students from restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. The court made it very clear that the decision was based on the particular legal and practical realities of athletics.

Montana’s House Bill 300 currently restricts access to bathrooms, locker rooms, shower areas, and sleeping quarters based on biological sex in educational institutions. This means that transgender students are prohibited from accessing such facilities that do not match their biological assigned sex at birth.

Bathroom restrictions in other public contexts passed under HB 121. However, this language is on hold due to a lawsuit filed by Legal Voice and its partners challenging its constitutionality.

What does this mean for educators, administrators, athletic associations, or other school officials in MT?

Schools and educators should continue to support their transgender students in ways that remain consistent with Montana law, including providing access to counseling, student support services, and other available resources.

Educators, administrators, athletic associations, and other school officials should ensure that their policies comply with Montana state law.

Does this ruling affect PE classes, non-athletic gendered programs such as Boys’ and Girls’ State conferences or chess clubs, or non-competitive school sports in MT? 

The court made a point of distinguishing between sports and other educational contexts. The ruling does not resolve separate legal questions outside of the sports context.

Does this ruling affect college athletics or only K-12 in MT?

Montana’s House Bill 300 applies to public K-12, college, and university athletic programs.

Furthermore, postsecondary schools that are members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) will follow NCAA governance, requiring that competitive women’s teams are restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth.

Could this ruling be used to challenge other protections for transgender people in healthcare, housing, or employment in MT? 

The Supreme Court’s decision is confined to the context of school sports. That said, court decisions are often invoked in other contexts, and it is possible that Montana officials will try to use the decision to legitimize further discrimination against transgender people.

Montana case law indicates that Montana’s Equal Protection and Individual Dignity clauses protect transgender people from laws that would discriminate against them.

Missoula, Helena, Butte, Bozeman, and Whitefish have also adopted local nondiscrimination ordinances (NDOs) that provide protections in areas such as employment, housing, and public accommodations. NDOs can be challenged at any time, so it’s essential to stay informed about local and state efforts to repeal them.