Marie-Amelie George, Wake Forest University

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution by preventing transgender students from joining female sports teams, and that states can restrict who participates on women’s and girls sports teams based on a student’s sex assigned at birth.

This ruling, focused squarely on transgender students participating on single-sex sports teams, does not resolve other major questions that are important to trans rights. These issues include what bathrooms transgender or nonbinary students can use at school, as well as whether transgender individuals can update their names and gender markers on identity documents.

The court folded two related cases that address sports team participation at the middle, high school and college levels – Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. – into one single decision that resolved both. The justices ruled 6-3 on the cases.

This ruling backs 25 other states that, over the past few years, have passed new laws restricting transgender students from participating on female sports teams.

Twenty-one states also have some sort of restriction on transgender and nonbinary students using school bathrooms designated by sex.

As a legal scholar and expert on LGBTQ+ rights, I believe that based on the court’s reasoning, it is likely that the conservative majority on the court would uphold states’ right to restrict school bathroom use based on sex assigned at birth. However, this ruling leaves bigger questions regarding transgender students’ broader rights in school, at work and elsewhere unanswered.

A political flash point

There were estimated to be fewer than 10 transgender athletes who participated in collegiate athletics in 2024.

But the issue of transgender students participating on sports teams is a hot-button issue for the Trump administration and Republicans, who argue that transgender female students have a biological advantage in competitive sports over athletes assigned female at birth.

The issue is nuanced and depends on factors including the athletes’ age and whether they have undergone gender-affirming hormonal therapy.

Some recent research shows that transgender female athletes who have undergone gender affirming hormone therapy have a comparable level of strength to cisgender female athletes.

What the rulings covered

At issue in these two Supreme Court cases were what protections Title IX – which bars sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal funding – as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment gave transgender students.

Advertisement

Little v. Hecox challenged Idaho’s 2020 law that allows only students whose sex was designated female at birth to participate on girls and women’s school sports team.

Lindsay Hecox, a transgender female student at Boise State University, alongside a cisgender student, filed a lawsuit against the state in 2020. Hecox, now 24, could not try out for the school’s track and cross country team because of the law. She instead ran at the club level.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., a transgender middle school student athlete named Becky Pepper-Jackson similarly sued the state so she could continue participating in track and field. Pepper-Jackson won a state title in girls shot put in May 2026.

The state’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act requires public middle schools, high schools and colleges to designate all school athletic teams by biological sex.

Understanding Title IX and how it applies

The Supreme Court determined that states are permitted to restrict sports team participation under Title IX and its regulations, which explicitly permit schools to have separate male and female sports teams.

The opinion started by emphasizing there are “enduring” physical differences between males and females, and that if there were unified sports teams, females could be at a disadvantage.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” the court ruled in its opinion on West Virginia v. B.P.J., authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the ruling.

Pepper-Jackson argued that this part of Title IX did not have relevance to her case because she had taken puberty blockers and never gone through male puberty.

As a result, she argued, she did not have heightened levels of testosterone or other physical differences that could raise the concern of a competitive advantage over cis female students in sports. She also posed no physical safety concerns for her teammates.

The court’s majority rejected this argument, saying that the Title IX regulations did not speak to this issue. The court recognized that although the laws might produce unfair results for someone like Pepper-Jackson, this did not make the restrictions improper.

The court added that Pepper-Jackson and other students in her position need to take up their concerns with state legislatures.

Advertisement

The court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed with the conservative majority that the laws did not violate Title IX.

The role of the equal protection clause

The court also addressed the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that the government must apply its laws fairly and cannot treat people differently without a valid reason.

The court’s conservative majority ruled that the laws distinguished based on sex, and as a result they scrutinized the laws more carefully. However, the court concluded that the athletic restrictions nevertheless passed constitutional muster.

Here, too, the court’s majority cited the interests of safety and competitive fairness as important justifications for the laws.

The liberal justices disagreed with their colleagues’ analysis. In their view, the laws were too broad to satisfy the Constitution, because they banned transgender girls who had never experienced male puberty from female sports teams.

A side step

The decision is a narrow one. The court went to great lengths to emphasize that it was focused on sports, and that the court was not being asked about transgender people’s rights more broadly.

In the court’s telling, sports are unique because competition depends on the physiology and physical differences between those assigned male and female at birth. That is important, because there are few circumstances in which the physical differences between males and females continue to be relevant.

In the past, many occupations and schools were sex-segregated. Today, bathrooms, school sports teams, changing facilities, some college residence halls, juvenile detention centers and prisons are among the last places that remain segregated by sex.

Moreover, the court avoided ruling on the constitutional standard that should apply when transgender people are discriminated against. Under constitutional doctrine, courts will more closely scrutinize laws that discriminate against historically powerless minority groups, such as people of color and women.

One of the open questions in transgender rights litigation is whether transgender people qualify for that more searching review.

Advertisement

This case did not resolve that issue.

The court’s narrow ruling on transgender athletes ultimately did not resolve other key issues for transgender rights, which the court will likely be asked to address at a later date.

Marie-Amelie George, Associate Professor of Law, Wake Forest University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

GLENDALE, Ariz. — One of Arizona’s most anticipated entertainment developments continues to make visible progress, but visitors eager to experience Mattel Adventure Park and VAI Resort will likely have to wait longer.

Located near State Farm Stadium in Glendale, the massive VAI Resort project and the adjacent Mattel Adventure Park have been under construction for several years. While the development has transformed the skyline west of Phoenix, recent updates indicate that neither attraction currently has a confirmed opening date.

New Reports Suggest Further Delays

Recent reports published in spring 2026 indicate that VAI Resort officials continue to maintain their policy of announcing an opening date approximately nine months before welcoming guests. Because no such announcement has been made, industry observers and local media outlets now believe a 2026 opening is becoming increasingly unlikely.

The uncertainty extends to Mattel Adventure Park, which was originally expected to open in 2022 before being delayed multiple times. After missing its latest target of late 2025, references to a specific opening date were removed from public materials. Park representatives have stated that they currently have no update regarding an opening timeline.

Construction Continues Across the Property

Despite the delays, construction remains active throughout the resort and theme park complex. Visitors traveling along Loop 101 can easily spot the towering Hot Wheels-themed roller coasters that have become some of the most recognizable structures on the site.

Drone footage and construction updates posted throughout 2026 show ongoing work on hotel towers, entertainment venues, infrastructure, and various attractions within Mattel Adventure Park.

The official VAI Resort website continues to promote its future offerings, including luxury accommodations, restaurants, entertainment venues, retail spaces, and the world’s first Mattel Adventure Park.

What Guests Can Expect

When completed, Mattel Adventure Park is expected to feature attractions inspired by some of Mattel’s most recognizable brands, including:

• Barbie™ Beach House
• Hot Wheels™ Bone Shaker™: The Ultimate Ride
• Hot Wheels™ Twin Mill™ Racer
• Thomas & Friends™ attractions
• Masters of the Universe-themed experiences
• Mattel Games-themed attractions and activities

The park will be Arizona’s first fully themed indoor-outdoor amusement park and is designed to offer experiences for guests of all ages.

Meanwhile, VAI Resort is planned to include four hotel towers with approximately 1,100 rooms, a large entertainment district, multiple restaurants, retail shopping, convention facilities, and a state-of-the-art amphitheater designed to host major concerts and events.

A Growing Vision

One factor contributing to the project’s lengthy timeline appears to be the continued expansion of the resort’s scope. Developers have repeatedly described VAI as a destination that has evolved far beyond its original vision, adding new hospitality, dining, entertainment, and retail components over time. Earlier project statements noted that these expansions affected scheduling for the adjacent theme park.

The development remains one of the largest tourism and hospitality projects currently underway in Arizona, with investments estimated at more than $1 billion.

Advertisement

Looking Ahead

For now, both VAI Resort and Mattel Adventure Park remain works in progress. Construction activity continues, new attractions are still being promoted on official websites, and developers have shown no indication that the project has been abandoned. However, without an announced opening date, Arizona residents and visitors will need to remain patient as Glendale’s ambitious entertainment destination moves closer to completion.

While many expected to be riding Hot Wheels coasters by now, the latest updates suggest that the world’s first Mattel Adventure Park is still a destination for the future rather than the present.

Related External Links

• Mattel Adventure Park Official Website
• VAI Resort Official Website
• City of Glendale Economic Development News
• State Farm Stadium Official Website
• Visit Glendale Arizona Tourism Guide
• Epic Resort Destinations

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis

The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.

The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.

Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.

That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.

Putting carmakers in a bind

The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.

Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.

The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.

The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.

For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.

Advertisement

A slower roll

The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.

The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.

Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.

But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.

Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.

But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.

The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.

This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.

Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.

Advertisement