The Supreme Court handed down a 6, 3 ruling upholding state laws that bar biological males from competing in women's sports, and most of the governors who still allow it had nothing to say. Fox News Digital reached out to all 23 states without transgender sports bans to ask where they stand in light of the decision. The majority refused to respond.
Fifteen governors' offices, spanning blue states from Massachusetts to Washington, ignored the request for comment entirely. A handful offered defiant statements. One Republican governor seized the moment to push his legislature toward action. The rest stayed silent, leaving female athletes in their states without the same protections the Court just affirmed for 27 others.
The ruling itself was unambiguous. National Review reported that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, declared that "the term sex in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex." The cases arose from laws in West Virginia and Idaho. The Court found that neither statute violated the Constitution or Title IX.
The list of governors who declined to comment reads like a roster of progressive state executives. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, none responded.
Nor did Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, or Maine Gov. Janet Mills.
That silence carries weight. These are not obscure officials dodging a niche policy question. The Supreme Court just resolved one of the most contested issues in American education and athletics. A reporter asked the leaders of nearly half the country where they stand, and they chose not to answer.
The pattern is familiar. When progressive leaders face rulings that cut against their preferred policies, the instinct is often to ignore, delay, or work around the decision, a dynamic that has played out repeatedly in recent years, from Democratic efforts to reverse a state Supreme Court redistricting ruling in Virginia to broader fights over federal court authority.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office issued a statement insisting the ruling changes nothing in the Golden State. A spokesperson said the decision "does not affect California's laws" and that the state "remains committed to ensuring every Californian, including the LGBTQ community, is met with dignity and respect."
Newsom's office went further, providing Fox News Digital a bulleted list of the governor's record on transgender policy, boasting that he has "the strongest record in the country on protecting and expanding transgender rights," including appointing "multiple trans judges" and "making it easier to update gender markers on official documents."
California passed AB 1266 in 2013, signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. The law requires transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. It has been on the books for over a decade. And its consequences are visible: a transgender athlete identified as AB Hernandez won a pair of girls' state championships in 2025 and back-to-back titles in 2026. The Trump administration's Department of Justice is now suing California over those results.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker responded not with a formal statement but with a link to his post on X, where he framed the ruling in personal terms:
"Going after LGBTQ+ kids isn't leadership, it's bullying. Today's decision is a setback for equality in this nation where every student deserves to learn and belong, no matter their gender. To those in the LGBTQ+ community, know that there's a place for you in Illinois."
Pritzker's framing skips past the central question the Court addressed, whether biological males have a right to compete against females, and repackages it as an anti-bullying issue. The Illinois High School Association handles transgender participation through a formal policy requiring students to submit documentation to compete in accordance with their gender identity. The governor offered no indication that policy would change.
Hawaii's Department of Education issued a brief statement noting it "will continue to implement its athletics policies in accordance with state law" and that the Supreme Court's ruling "does not change our current policies or practices." Hawaii's participation policy is rooted in broader state anti-discrimination statutes. Gov. Josh Green's office deferred entirely to the education department.
Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, was the only governor among the 23 to use the ruling as a call to legislative action. His statement to Fox News Digital was direct and detailed:
"Today's decision by the United States Supreme Court provides important legal clarity and affirms that states have the authority to protect fair competition in girls' sports. Nevadans overwhelmingly believe that female athletes deserve a level playing field and the opportunity to compete against other biological females."
Lombardo said he had already announced plans to ask the Legislature to take up the issue during the 2027 session. He added that the ruling "only reinforces the need for Nevada lawmakers to act" and called it "an opportunity for the Legislature to provide a permanent, common-sense solution that reflects both the law and the will of Nevada voters."
His closing appeal cut across party lines: "I urge lawmakers from both parties to come together and finally settle this issue for our students, our schools, and Nevada families." Whether Nevada's legislature, which has not been friendly to such proposals, will follow through remains an open question.
The contrast between Lombardo's response and the silence from governors in states like Michigan, New York, and New Jersey is hard to miss. When the Court speaks clearly and one governor acts while fifteen others refuse to even acknowledge the question, the divide is not about legal ambiguity. It is about political will.
In the absence of state legislation, most of the 23 states have left transgender sports policy to athletic associations, bodies that answer to education bureaucracies, not voters. The results vary in form but not much in substance. Nearly all of them permit biological males to compete in girls' sports.
Connecticut's Interscholastic Athletic Conference allows transgender athletes to participate "without restrictions." New Jersey's state athletic association permits participation "without requiring medical documentation." Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Delaware, New Mexico, and Rhode Island all maintain similar policies. The conservative majority's ruling may apply broadly to Republican-led states with bans, but these blue-state associations show no sign of adjusting course.
Minnesota's State High School League evaluates transgender participation on a "case-by-case" basis, a process that stops short of a blanket ban but still lacks the transparency of a clear rule. Maine's Principals' Association allows students to compete on teams matching their gender identity, backed by the state's human rights act. The DOJ is suing both states, along with California, over their policies.
When the federal government must resort to litigation to enforce basic fairness in girls' athletics, it raises a question about what these state institutions think their obligations are, a question the DOJ has confronted before in other contexts where court rulings required active enforcement.
Not every state without a legislative ban has stood still. Pennsylvania's Interscholastic Athletic Association removed its inclusive "Transgender Policy" in early 2025 and amended its rules to reference biological sex rather than gender identity, citing federal executive orders tied to Title IX funding. Wisconsin's athletic association followed a similar path in February 2025, mandating that only students designated female at birth may participate in girls' competitions.
Both changes came without legislation. They were driven by the threat of losing federal dollars, a lever the Trump administration has used aggressively. Yet in both states, the governors declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed legislative attempts to codify protections for girls' sports in state law, even as his state's athletic association quietly aligned with federal policy.
That gap, between what the associations did under federal pressure and what the governors refuse to say publicly, tells its own story.
Alaska's School Activities Association voted in 2023 to bar transgender girls from high school girls' sports at the request of the state's board of education. Virginia's Department of Education, under former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, issued model policies in 2023 requiring participation based on biological sex at birth. Current Gov. Abigail Spanberger's administration has continued those policies, though enforcement falls to individual school districts. Neither governor's office responded to Fox News Digital's inquiry.
The Court's decision affirmed what 27 state legislatures had already concluded: that protecting fair competition for female athletes is constitutional and consistent with Title IX. Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst put it plainly during oral arguments: "Men and women are obviously not the same."
But the ruling does not compel the remaining 23 states to adopt bans. It clears the legal path. It removes the uncertainty that governors like Lombardo cited. It establishes that "sex" means biological sex under federal law. What it cannot do is force a governor in Sacramento or Springfield to care about the girls losing races, scholarships, and roster spots to biological males.
The broader pattern, progressive leaders ignoring or resisting Supreme Court authority when rulings conflict with their ideological commitments, is not new. It has surfaced in fights over administrative state power, redistricting, and executive authority. What makes this instance different is the simplicity of the underlying question. This is not a complex regulatory dispute. It is whether girls get to compete against other girls.
Fifteen governors were asked that question and chose silence. Newsom and Pritzker answered by changing the subject. Lombardo answered by calling for legislation. The Court has spoken. The question now is whether the states that still allow biological males in girls' sports will keep pretending they didn't hear it.
When the highest court in the land rules 6, 3 and half the country's governors won't even return the call, the problem isn't legal uncertainty. It's political cowardice dressed up as compassion.