In a recent podcast with Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, California Gov. Gavin Newsom stated that it is “deeply unfair” for boys to compete against girls in athletic contests.
The governor's “unfair” admission appears to have been a momentary opinion, since he soon changed direction regarding female athletes in his state.
President Donald Trump had made the subject of prohibiting biological male athletes from competing in women's sports a key issue in the 2024 election campaign. President Trump recently suggested that he may cut federal funding to California if the state continues to allow biological male athletes to compete against females.
Gov. Newsom was informed that California's policies are in violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded educational program.
In February 2025, the Department of Education began an investigation into the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversees sports at more than 1,500 high schools. These are schools at which the policy of allowing male transgender students to compete against females has continued.
In May 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation into whether California was violating the civil rights of female students in connection with the implementation of the same policies.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlined a list of demands for California, which must be met if the state wishes to continue to receive federal funding. McMahon noted that California must fulfill a list of actions or risk the loss of education funding.
The Department of Education's investigation indicated that the California Department of Education (CDE) and the CIF are in violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination in education. This is because the state's policies allow males who identify as females to participate in women's sports.
Should the State of California decide not to comply with Title IX and fail to prohibit participation by biological males, it will lose federal funding.
The administration has proposed a resolution agreement that would require California to change its policies. The Golden State has 10 days to accept the proposed resolution agreement. If it does not, the Department of Education will refer the matter to the DOJ for further proceedings.
Under the resolution agreement, California must:
- Alter its guidance that allows participation in sports based on gender identity.
- Issue written apologies to each female athlete who took second place to a biological male athlete.
- Restore misappropriated sports records, titles, and awards to the female athletes who would otherwise have attained them.
- Adopt binary biology-based definitions for the terms “male” and “female.”
- Conduct an annual certification ensuring compliance with Title IX.
In analyzing this issue from a legal perspective, it is difficult to see how the U.S. Supreme Court could not be the final arbiter in this matter.
Several states have already passed laws restricting participation based on sex assigned at birth. Other states are facing legal challenges that assert discrimination.
As legal battles have ensued, courts have reached differing conclusions when reviewing challenges surrounding the placement of restrictions on transgender athletes' participation in school sports. Legal challenges have invoked both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Some federal courts have rendered rulings that base discrimination on gender identity. Other courts have ruled that the restriction of teams based on biological sex does not violate legal protections.
Courts have also been divided in rulings that concern the application of the Equal Protection Clause with regard to laws and policies that involve gender identity in differing contexts.
President Trump's Executive Order 14201, which seeks to ban biological males from female sports across all educational levels, brings an additional layer to the legal complexity.
In my legal opinion, the issue of biological male athletes competing in women's sports necessitates a high court decision, because of the need for a thorough analysis and ultimately a clear, definitive ruling.
The direct involvement of the Supreme Court, regarding the manner in which Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws are applied to transgender athletes, is essential, due to the conflicting legal interpretations of multiple federal courts as well as the societal ramifications that will inevitably flow from the high court's decision.
James Hirsen, J.D., M.A., in media psychology, is a New York Times best-selling author, media analyst, and law professor. Visit Newsmax TV Hollywood. Read James Hirsen's Reports — More Here.