HR-28-119
Received in the Senate.
Sponsored by W. Steube (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to require that federally funded schools designate athletic teams for "women or girls" based solely on a student's reproductive biology and genetics at birth, prohibiting students whose sex at birth is male from participating on those teams. It would allow schools to permit males to train or practice with women's or girls' teams as long as no female student loses a roster spot, competition opportunity, scholarship, admission, or other related benefit. It also directs the Government Accountability Office to study and report on what benefits to women and girls would be lost by allowing male participation in women's and girls' sports.
Who benefits
Cisgender female student-athletes who supporters say could otherwise lose roster spots, competitive opportunities, records, or scholarships to transgender female athletes; athletic associations seeking a uniform federal standard rather than a patchwork of state rules; and advocacy groups that have pushed for sex-based eligibility criteria in women's sports.
Who is hurt
Transgender female student-athletes who would be barred from competing on girls' or women's teams at federally funded schools, potentially losing access to team membership, scholarships, and competitive opportunities; schools and athletic associations that would need to revise eligibility policies or risk losing federal funding; and transgender students generally, who may experience this as a broader statement affecting their inclusion in school life.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that preserving separate athletic categories based on sex at birth protects competitive fairness and safety for female athletes, citing physiological differences in strength, speed, and size that can emerge from male puberty. They contend that without a clear, uniform federal rule, cisgender girls and women risk losing roster spots, records, and scholarship opportunities to transgender competitors, and that Title IX's original purpose of ensuring equal athletic opportunities for women requires this clarification.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that this bill would categorically exclude transgender girls and women from school sports regardless of individual circumstances, hormone levels, or competitive impact, treating a small population as a uniform threat without case-by-case evidence. They contend it conflicts with the reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, which recognized that discrimination based on transgender status is a form of sex discrimination, and that it forces schools to police students' bodies and birth records to enforce compliance.
Constitutional context
This bill raises Equal Protection Clause questions about whether sex-based classifications in athletics survive intermediate scrutiny, and it intersects with the reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which held that discrimination against transgender individuals is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII, though Bostock did not address Title IX athletics directly and courts remain split on how its logic applies there.
Checks and balances
Congress would set a binding federal eligibility standard tied to Title IX funding, shifting authority away from individual schools, athletic associations, and states that currently set their own policies, with courts able to review the standard's constitutionality and agencies like the Department of Education enforcing compliance.
Historical precedent
Several states have enacted similar laws restricting transgender athletes' participation in school sports based on sex at birth, some of which have faced ongoing legal challenges in federal courts.