2026年6月30日 / 美国东部时间上午11:10 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯——美国最高法院周二裁定，各州可以禁止跨性别运动员参与女子体育赛事，这一决定给跨性别权利运动带来了最新挫折。
在本届任期内最受关注的两起案件中，最高法院维持了西弗吉尼亚州和爱达荷州限制跨性别运动员参与学校体育活动的法律。这两起案件分别为“西弗吉尼亚州诉B.P.J.”案和“利特尔诉赫科克斯”案。
布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官撰写了多数派意见，称根据《第九章法案》和平等保护条款，学校可以依据生理性别来确定女子体育队的参赛资格。
“根据《第九章法案》和平等保护条款，我们认定各州可以为生理女性保留女子体育赛事。各州可以依据生理性别来确定女子体育赛事的参赛资格，”卡瓦诺写道。“美国宪法和《第九章法案》并不要求彻底改革全美各地的女子体育赛事。”
三名自由派大法官在平等保护条款的多数派裁决中投了反对票，但在《第九章法案》问题上与保守派大法官意见一致。
这一裁决为近年来27个州出台的类似法律提供了保护。这些法律是针对跨性别运动员参与女子体育赛事的高调事件而制定的。去年，特朗普总统签署了一项行政命令，禁止接受联邦资金的教育项目允许跨性别女孩和女性参加与其性别认同相符的运动队。
美国全国大学体育协会（NCAA）和国际奥林匹克委员会也更新了参赛资格政策，将女子赛事的参赛资格仅限授予出生时被指派为女性的运动员。
这一裁决是最高法院审理的又一起考验跨性别权利的案件。在上一届任期内，最高法院维持了田纳西州限制未成年性别焦虑症患者接受特定医疗治疗的法律。目前已有半数州出台了类似措施。
但在2020年，最高法院曾裁定《第七章》这一联邦民权法律禁止雇主因员工的性取向或跨性别身份解雇他们。反对运动员参赛禁令的一方曾辩称，法院在该案中的推理也应适用于《第九章法案》。但卡瓦诺写道，2020年的民权法律及其裁决“与这个完全不同的法定和事实背景无关”。
“《第七章》涉及就业问题，而此处相关的《第九章法案》则聚焦于体育赛事，”他说。“两者的事实背景截然不同。”
西弗吉尼亚州法律
西弗吉尼亚州于2021年出台了名为《拯救女子体育法案》的法律。该法案要求运动队必须根据出生时的生理性别进行分类，并禁止出生时被指派为男性的学生参与女子体育赛事。
在该法律生效前，一名名叫贝基·佩珀-杰克逊的跨性别女孩因希望参加学校的女子越野跑和田径队，提起诉讼要求阻止该法律的执行。佩珀-杰克逊从三年级开始进行社会性别转变，并服用了青春期延迟药物和激素疗法。她目前正在读高中。
美国地区法院于2023年维持了西弗吉尼亚州的法律，但联邦上诉法院在2024年裁定该措施非法基于性别对佩珀-杰克逊进行歧视。
此案的核心争议点在于，《第九章法案》或宪法的平等保护条款是否禁止州政府禁止跨性别女孩和女性参加与其性别认同相符的运动队。
佩珀-杰克逊的律师辩称，这类禁令仅针对极少数运动员——他们表示，佩珀-杰克逊是西弗吉尼亚州唯一的跨性别运动员。此外，由于接受了青春期延迟治疗，佩珀-杰克逊和其他类似的跨性别女孩在生理上并不比出生时被指派为女性的竞争对手具有任何体育优势，她的律师称。
但州政府官员表示，这类禁令在性别之间划出了合理的区分，这种分类与他们保护女子体育赛事的利益密切相关。
《第九章法案》于50多年前颁布，禁止在接受联邦资金的教育项目中存在性别歧视。该法案通过两年后，相关法规获得通过，允许学校设立性别分隔的体育队，以及单独的更衣室、洗手间和淋浴间。不过，学校必须为两性成员提供“平等的体育机会”。
爱达荷州法律
最高法院还审理了一起针对爱达荷州法律的诉讼。爱达荷州是首个禁止跨性别运动员参与女子体育赛事的州。
林赛·赫科克斯曾试图参加博伊西州立大学的女子田径和越野队，随后提起诉讼挑战爱达荷州的法律，称该州的禁令违反宪法并侵犯了《第九章法案》。联邦上诉法院在2024年裁定爱达荷州的禁令很可能违宪。
Supreme Court upholds state bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports
June 30, 2026 / 11:10 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled states can prohibit transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, a decision that delivers the latest setback for transgender rights.
In two of the most closely watched cases of its term, the Supreme Court upheld laws from West Virginia and Idaho that restrict transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. The cases are known as West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion for the majority, writing that under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools can base eligibility for women and girls’ sports teams on biological sex.
“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
The three liberal justices dissented from the majority’s finding when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause, but agreed with the court’s conservatives on Title IX.
The ruling protects similar laws in 27 states that have been enacted in recent years in response to high-profile instances of transgender athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sporting events. President Trump signed an executive order last year that prohibits educational programs that receive federal dollars from allowing transgender girls and women to play on the teams that align with their gender identity.
The NCAA and the International Olympic Committee have also updated their eligibility policies, limiting competition in women’s events to only athletes assigned female at birth.
The ruling is the latest to land before the Supreme Court that tested transgender rights. In its last term, the high court upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to certain medical treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. Half of the states have similar measures in place.
But in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal civil rights law known as Title VII prohibits an employer from firing a worker because of their sexual orientation or transgender status. Challengers to the athlete bans had argued that the court’s reasoning in that case should apply to Title IX. But Kavanaugh wrote that the civil rights law and its 2020 ruling “are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context.”
“Title VII concerns employment, whereas Title IX as relevant here focuses on sports,” he said. “The two factual contexts are vastly different.”
The West Virginia law
West Virginia enacted its law, called the Save Women’s Sports Act, in 2021. The measure requires athletic teams to be designated based on biological sex at birth and bars students assigned male at birth from playing in girls’ and women’s sports.
Before the law took effect, a transgender girl named Becky Pepper-Jackson, who wanted to compete on her school’s girls cross-country and track teams, sued to block its enforcement. Pepper-Jackson began socially transitioning in third grade and has taken puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy. She is now in high school.
A U.S. district court upheld West Virginia’s law in 2023, but a federal appellate court in 2024 ruled that the measure unlawfully discriminates against Pepper-Jackson on the basis of sex.
At issue in the case was whether Title IX or the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prevented a state from forbidding transgender girls and women from playing on the athletic teams that match their gender identity.
Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson had argued that the bans targeted only a small number of athletes — their client is the only transgender athlete in West Virginia, they said. Additionally, because of puberty-delaying medical treatment, Pepper-Jackson and other transgender girls like her do not have any biological athletic advantage over competitors designated female at birth, her lawyers said.
But state officials said the bans draw permissible distinctions between the sexes, classifications that are substantially related to their interest in protecting girls’ and women’s sports.
Title IX was enacted more than 50 years ago and prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Two years after its passage, regulations were adopted to allow schools to operate sex-separated athletic teams, as well as separate locker rooms, restrooms and showers. Schools, though, must provide “equal athletic opportunity” for members of both sexes.
The Idaho law
The Supreme Court also weighed a challenge to a law from Idaho, which was the first state to forbid transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.
Lindsay Hecox filed her lawsuit challenging Idaho’s law after seeking to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University and argued that the state’s ban was unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX. A federal appeals court ruled in 2024 that Idaho’s ban is likely unconstitutional.
发表回复