Supreme Court decision on transgender athletes ‘paves the way’ for N.H. to enforce its girls sports law, governor says

For nearly a year, a lawsuit filed on behalf of two New Hampshire teenagers who are challenging a 2024 state law that bans transgender girls from girls’ school sports has been on hold, as the litigants awaited a ruling from the US Supreme Court on two similar cases out of Idaho and West Virginia.

Read more The Supreme Court’s term has come to an end. Here are a few takeaways.

That ruling, issued Tuesday, found that states can legally separate athletics on the basis of biological sex without violating either the Constitution or the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Governor Kelly Ayotte said the decision “paves the way” for New Hampshire to enforce its law as well.

Ayotte, a Republican, said letting males compete in women’s sports is unfair, so she is pleased with the court’s decision.

For the plaintiffs and their families challenging New Hampshire’s law, however, which is the only one of its kind anywhere in New England, the Supreme Court’s ruling represents another setback in their fight to be seen and respected.

Chris Erchull, a senior staff attorney with GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders — one of the law firms representing plaintiffs Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle — said their lawsuit in New Hampshire isn’t over. The newly released Supreme Court decision is directly relevant, but further litigation will be needed to figure out whether any of their pending claims can move forward, he said.

Erchull said his team will highlight some of the ways in which the New Hampshire case differs from those that the Supreme Court just decided. For example, unlike in the Idaho and West Virginia disputes, the judge in New Hampshire that state lawmakers had intentionally targeted a class of people and subjected them to differing treatment because they are transgender, he said.

Sorting out whether and how the New Hampshire case might proceed could take months, though the timeline will depend on what motions are filed and how the judge rules, Erchull said.

“There’s a lot that’s up in the air right now,” he said.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella said he is pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling and believes it “provides strong support” for New Hampshire’s law.

“We are reviewing the decision and evaluating the appropriate next steps in the pending litigation,” he said, expressing confidence in the state’s position.

This law requires schools to designate each of their interscholastic sports and club athletics teams as being for either males, females, or both. The law bars males from female-designated sports and defines a student’s sex based primarily on their unamended birth certificate. The law applies to public schools with students in fifth through 12th grades, as well as private schools that compete against those public schools.

The law allows any student or school harmed directly or indirectly as a result of a school’s knowing violation of the law to suewithin two years to seek damages.

Former governor Chris Sununu, a Republican, signed the legislation in 2024, saying New Hampshire would join about half of US states that bar transgender girls from girls’ sports to promote safety and fairness.

At the same time, Sununu vetoed a so-called “bathroom bill” that would have added carve-outs to the state’s anti-discrimination law to expressly allow sex-separation in bathrooms, locker rooms, detention facilities, and athletics more broadly. Ayotte, who took office in January 2025, has repeatedly vetoed such legislation as well.

A group of women lawmakers in the New Hampshire House responded to Tuesday’s ruling by calling on Ayotte to sign pending legislation (House Bill 1442) that would expressly allow, but not require, sex-based separation in multi-person bathrooms, locker rooms, and certain other sensitive spaces across the state.

“This bill is about common sense and protecting the dignity and privacy of everyone,” Representative Lisa Mazur of Goffstown said in a statement.

Read more No, the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling isn’t game changing — it even has silver linings

The proposal closely resembles the legislation Ayotte previously vetoed.

Parker Tirrell, now 17, said she is grateful to Ayotte for vetoing the bathroom legislation, but dismayed about the broader state of affairs.

“It’s really, really sad and bleak what our country is deciding to do to trans people,” she said.

“I do love my country,” she added. “But I am just so disappointed.”

Tirrell, a rising senior at Plymouth Regional High School, had been playing soccer with her classmates when this litigation began. Although court orders protected her ability to keep doing so, she said the pressure of being in the spotlight contributed to her decision to quit an activity she loves.

“I don’t want to feel like I’m giving them a victory by me not playing sports,” she said. “But that is what’s happening.”

Parker Tirrell said she wants to have the option to resume her involvement in school sports.

Her mother, Sara Tirrell, said it’s frustrating to see the country spend so much time focusing on such a small group of people who are looking to athletics for a sense of belonging.

“They’re trying to have fun. They’re trying to make connection, make friends, and gain the skills that everybody gets to gain when they play sports,” she said.

Amy Manzelli, the mother of co-plaintiff Iris Turmelle, said Tuesday’s decision left her speechless and in tears.

While those who support excluding transgender girls often cite concerns about safety and competitive fairness, the lawsuit in New Hampshire argues the plaintiffs don’t pose a risk to their peers and don’t enjoy a competitive advantage, especially since they never experienced the physiological changes typical of testosterone-driven male puberty.

Judge Landya B. McCafferty concluded in 2024 that the two plaintiffs were likely to succeed, so she issued a preliminary injunction barring officials from enforcing the new law against either of them.

McCafferty’s order applied only to the plaintiffs, so when President Trump returned to the White House in 2025 and issued a series of anti-trans directives, at least one other school district in New Hampshire responded by no longer allowing transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports. The plaintiffs added Trump as a defendant in their suit before the litigation was paused last summer.

Erchull said it’s important to note that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision requires that transgender students be excluded from athletics. That means states that have adopted inclusive policies are unaffected by this decision, he said.

Sara Tirrell said she hopes Americans will muster the political will to “reverse some of the damage that this administration has done.”

Parker Tirrell said she’s still in the fight.

“I will never stop advocating for basic human rights,” Parker Tirrell said. “And I really, really hope that someday someone will actually listen.”

Read more The Supreme Court just gave the GOP a new midterm edge