Court Upsets Title IX Playbook

A New York judge just told a private university it cannot use President Trump’s sports order to sideline a transgender runner from a women’s track meet — raising big questions about who protects girls’ sports and who really holds the power in this fight.

Story Snapshot

New York judge says state gender-identity protections beat Trump’s order on women’s sports.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute cannot rely on Executive Order 14201 to bar a transgender runner.^[1]
The ruling clashes with a growing push in many states to keep biological males out of women’s sports.^[7]
Supreme Court cases from Idaho and West Virginia may soon set the national standard.^[4]

New York judge undercuts Trump’s effort to protect women’s sports

State Judge Richard McNally in New York ruled that a university violated state human rights law when it blocked transgender runner Sadie Schreiner from a 2025 women’s track meet.^[1] The judge said New York’s ban on gender identity discrimination controls the case, not President Trump’s Executive Order 14201. In his view, the order is only a policy statement, not a law, so it cannot override state civil rights protections.^[1] This means schools in New York must follow state anti-discrimination rules even if federal funds are at risk.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute argued that Schreiner’s exclusion was required under Title IX and Trump’s order to keep women’s sports fair for female athletes.^[1] The judge rejected that defense, saying the school only gave “lip service” to Title IX and failed to cite any Department of Education rule that clearly bans all transgender women from women’s teams.^[1] He allowed her claim under New York’s Human Rights Law to move forward but tossed out her emotional distress and public-accommodation claims, keeping the case focused on discrimination.^[1]

Executive Order 14201 and the battle over who sets the rules

President Trump’s Executive Order 14201, signed in 2025, states that it is the policy of the United States to pull federal funding from programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities by allowing transgender females into women’s sports.^[14] Supporters see this as a key tool to defend girls’ sports from unfair competition and to push schools to separate teams strictly by biological sex. The New York judge, however, called the order “not a statute” and “not a regulation” and said it does not involve foreign policy, so it cannot preempt state law.^[1]

This reasoning matters for conservatives who expect federal policy to back up fair-play protections. If other courts follow Judge McNally’s lead, progressive states can keep using broad gender-identity laws to override efforts to separate sports by sex, even under a conservative administration.^[1] That would leave Executive Order 14201 as a warning about funding, but not a direct legal shield for schools that want to keep biological males out of women’s events. It shifts much of the real power back to blue-state legislatures and judges, not the White House.

Supreme Court showdown: fairness for girls versus new civil rights claims

While New York courts lean toward transgender inclusion, the United States Supreme Court is weighing two key cases from Idaho and West Virginia that could reshape the national picture.^[4] Both states passed laws barring transgender girls and women from competing on female teams in public schools and colleges, aiming to protect fair competition and equal opportunity for biological girls.^[5] Lower federal courts blocked those bans and sided with transgender athletes, saying the laws amount to sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.^[4]

On January 13, 2026, justices heard arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.^[4]^[10] Lawyers for the transgender athletes claimed the state bans treat them worse than their peers and violate equal protection and Title IX.^[4]^[5] They argued that sex-separated teams can exist, but blanket bans that exclude all transgender females go too far.^[2] States pushed back, saying Title IX was written to protect girls’ sports based on biological sex, not identity, and that gender identity should not control eligibility.^[5] Conservative legal voices stressed that physiological differences between males and females remain even after hormone therapy, making sex-based rules essential for fairness.^[6]

National push to defend women’s sports collides with blue-state courts

Across the country, more than two dozen states have passed laws limiting transgender students from playing on teams that match their gender identity, often in the name of fairness and safety for girls.^[13]^[18] These laws reflect concerns from parents, coaches, and female athletes who see biological males in women’s events as a direct threat to equal opportunity. At the same time, states like New York and California have gone the other way, writing explicit protections for gender identity into law and allowing transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their identity.^[6]

New York judge rules in favor of Sadie Schreiner, transgender athlete booted from women's track meet – https://t.co/OBGA1Tc2o8 – @washtimes #TitleIX #genderidentity #RPI

— Valerie Richardson (@ValRichardson17) June 28, 2026

This split sets up a direct clash between red-state fairness laws, Trump’s executive order, and blue-state civil rights statutes. The Supreme Court’s coming decisions on Idaho and West Virginia will either strengthen states’ ability to keep women’s sports for biological females or hand transgender activists a major victory that undercuts those protections nationwide.^[3]^[7] Judge McNally’s ruling shows how far some state judges are willing to go, even under a conservative administration, to treat gender identity protections as trumping both federal funding threats and the original intent of Title IX.^[1]