“The Supreme Court has established a new nationwide precedent that allows states to protect women’s sports.”
This is a two-edged sword. The ruling essentially “allows” states to enact laws that protect women’s sports. But it also will allow other states to enact laws that force recognition of males who believe they are females to compete with and share locker rooms/showers with biological females.
The lawsuits weren’t about boys are boys and girls are girls. It was about states being allowed to enact and enforce laws that didn’t violate section IX.
As noted in a footnote on page 8. These two cases are only about one aspect of the issues. It is also the subject of several ballot questions across the country. See Maine, Arizona, etc. I am aware it is a slight distiction, but unless congress were to unversially banned boys/men from particpating in female sports and likewise ban girls/woman from particpating in male sports, these cases will move through the process as separate issues.
In the instance of Maine, the ballot question equally prohibits participation and access to each other locker rooms and bathroom facilities.
Title IX (was probably wrongly) focused on protecting only girls.
1 As the plaintiffs, the States, and the United States as amicus curiae all agree, these cases do not present the distinct question of whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may allow biological males who identify as female to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams. That question is currently the subject of litigation in some lower courts. Nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question. In addition, nothing in this opinion should be interpreted toaddress or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.