The legal landscape for transgender rights in the United States continues to evolve rapidly, with the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) and federal courts issuing pivotal decisions. The past year has seen high-profile cases on access to gender-affirming care, participation in school sports, restroom policies, and the intersection of First Amendment rights with issues of gender identity. These cases have resulted in a patchwork of rulings and left many legal questions unresolved, with significant implications for students, educators, and families nationwide.
Supreme Court Action
Last June, in United States v. Skrmetti, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, holding that the law was not sex discrimination since it applied equally to all youth, regardless of gender identity. By framing the issue as a medical regulation and deferring to state authority—rather than extending prior civil rights precedents like Bostock, which held that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity—this decision signals that federal courts may be less willing to extend anti-discrimination protections to transgender individuals outside the employment context, creating legal uncertainty for transgender students.
The Court has also addressed related issues of transgender rights in education and public spaces. For example, in South Carolina v. Doe, the Court denied a request to stay an injunction that allowed a transgender boy to use the boys’ restroom while litigation over South Carolina’s restrictive restroom law proceeds. Although the Court did not reach the merits of the underlying legal questions, it allowed the injunction—and, by extension, the student’s access to facilities matching his gender identity—to remain in place during the appeal. However, considering the Court’s deference to state authority in Skrmetti, this interim protection for transgender students may be at risk.
The Court’s reluctance to intervene in disputes over school district policies was also evident in Lee v. Poudre School District R-1. In October 2025, the Court denied certiorari in a case brought by parents challenging a Colorado school district’s policy of affirming students’ gender identity at school while not disclosing it to parents without the student’s consent. The denial leaves the district’s policy in place. This suggests that, for now, school autonomy in these matters prevails—potentially resulting in significant geographic variation in protections for transgender students.
Most recently, on January 13, 2026, the Court heard arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J and Little v. Hecox—two cases challenging state bans on transgender girls and women participating in female sports teams. Both cases focus on whether such laws violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. A ruling upholding these laws could allow states nationwide to bar transgender girls and women from female sports teams, while a decision striking them down could affirm that federal law protects transgender students’ right to participate in accordance with their gender identity. A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s current term in June.
Noteworthy Circuit and District Court Decisions
On July 2, 2025, the Seventh Circuit decided Darlingh v. Maddaleni, upholding a school district’s decision to terminate a counselor for making a public, profanity-laden speech denouncing gender ideology. While the appellate court recognized that the speech addressed a matter of public concern, it held that the counselor’s statements undermined her ability to serve students and were not protected by the First Amendment.
On September 25, 2025, in Gaines v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia allowed a narrow Title IX claim to proceed against the NCAA, focusing on whether the NCAA is a direct or indirect recipient of federal financial assistance—specifically through its partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense for concussion research. If the NCAA is found to be a Title IX recipient, its eligibility rules could be subject to federal nondiscrimination requirements—a decision that could impact transgender athletes nationwide.
Related First Amendment Issues
A significant thread running through recent litigation on transgender rights is the question of how the First Amendment protects—or does not protect—speech and expression related to gender identity.
On July 2, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit decided Wood v. Florida Department of Education, upholding a Florida law that prohibits public school teachers from using pronouns that differ from their sex assigned at birth. The appellate court reasoned that a teacher’s use of pronouns in the classroom is speech made pursuant to official duties and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
Student speech has also become a focal point. On November 6, 2025, the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, decided Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education. In a 10 -7 ruling, the appellate court struck down a school district’s policy requiring students to use gender-affirming pronouns based on serious First Amendment concerns. In reversing prior decisions by the district court and three-judge appellate panel, the en banc panel held that the district failed to show substantial classroom disruption or point to any Ohio law establishing that misgendering students invades the rights of others. The Sixth Circuit concluded that, absent evidence of harassment or material disruption, students’ and parents’ rights to use biological pronouns are protected free speech, outweighing the district’s anti-harassment policy. However, the appellate court emphasized that its decision does not prevent schools from taking steps to address genuine harassment or abuse.
Conclusion
These recent developments highlight the complex and unsettled nature of legal protections for transgender individuals in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decisions, particularly in Skrmetti, mark a shift toward upholding state restrictions on gender-affirming care and other rights. At the same time, ongoing litigation in lower courts continues to test the scope of Title IX, equal protection, and First Amendment rights. As these cases progress, the legal landscape for transgender Americans remains in flux, with high stakes for students, teachers, parents, and professionals across the country.