Twenty-three states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories are states that allow transgender athletes to play on school sports teams matching their gender identity, in the sense that they have no state law or regulation banning it. Those states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands also have no ban. Roughly 58 percent of transgender youth ages 13 to 17 live in jurisdictions without bans.1Movement Advancement Project. Bans on Transgender Youth Participation in Sports
Whether a transgender student can actually compete in one of these states depends on the state athletic association’s policy, the local school district, and, after a June 2026 Supreme Court ruling, how long the state’s inclusive approach survives federal pressure.
What “No Ban” Means in Practice
Absence of a ban is not the same as an affirmative right to play. Some of these 23 states have detailed inclusive frameworks. Others have simply not legislated on the question, leaving the decision to school districts or state athletic associations.
Washington has operated under a model policy developed in 2007 by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association in collaboration with the organization Gender Diversity, and the state superintendent has publicly enforced nondiscrimination requirements in schools.2Washington State LGBTQ Commission. Sports California has long maintained inclusive policies and is now a target of federal enforcement because of them. Pennsylvania and Hawaii, by contrast, have not addressed the issue at the state level at all.
One boundary worth naming up front: this concerns K-12 and, in some states, college athletics governed by state law. It does not control NCAA competition, which adopted its own restriction in February 2025, nor U.S. Olympic and Paralympic competition, which did the same in July 2025. A transgender athlete may be eligible under state law and still be ineligible at the national-governing-body level.
How Inclusion Works in These States
Because most of the operative rules come from state high school athletic associations rather than legislatures, the mechanics differ considerably from one state to the next. According to TransAthlete.com, 16 states and the District of Columbia maintain policies the site categorizes as “friendly” to transgender and nonbinary students in high school athletics, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.3TransAthlete.com. K-12
A few examples show the range:
- Connecticut’s CIAC defers to individual school districts. Eligibility is based on the gender listed in “current school records and daily life activities,” and no medical documentation is required.4Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. Principal Transgender Discussion Quick Reference Guide
- New Jersey’s NJSIAA has had a transgender policy since 2009. Students may declare their gender identity without a medical test, and eligibility disputes are resolved at the school level.5NJSIAA. Transgender FAQs
- Massachusetts’ MIAA states that “no student shall be excluded from participation on a gender-specific sports team that is consistent with the student’s bona fide gender identity,” and leaves implementation to local districts.6MIAA. Gender and Participation
The common thread in these friendlier states is a declared-identity standard without a medical gatekeeping requirement, with disputes handled locally.
States With No Ban and No Statewide Policy
A handful of states have neither banned transgender participation nor adopted an explicit statewide inclusion policy. Hawaii, Michigan, and Pennsylvania fall into this group, which leaves schools to navigate the question on their own.3TransAthlete.com. K-12 A transgender student in these states should expect the answer to come from the district or the individual school rather than a uniform state rule.
How the June 2026 Supreme Court Ruling Affects These States
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, ruling that states may exclude transgender girls and women from female sports teams. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, held that schools “may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex” and that “separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable.”7USA Today. Supreme Court Transgender Female Athlete Bans Teams
For states that currently allow transgender athletes to compete, the critical language is what the ruling did not decide. The majority stated that the cases “do not present the distinct question of whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may allow biological males who identify as female to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams,” calling that question the subject of ongoing litigation in lower courts. The opinion explicitly said “nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question.”8Supreme Court of the United States. West Virginia v. B. P. J.
In plain terms: the ruling says states may ban transgender athletes from girls’ teams. It does not say states must. California, Washington, New Jersey, and the other 20 states without bans are, for now, free to keep their inclusive policies in place.
Federal Pressure on States That Still Allow Participation
The constitutional question is settled in one direction, but federal pressure on inclusive states is active and ongoing.
On February 5, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” directing federal agencies to rescind funding from educational programs that allow transgender women or girls to compete on female teams and instructing the Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement against such schools.9The White House. Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports The order also directed compliance with a federal judge’s vacatur of the Biden administration’s April 2024 Title IX rule, which had expanded protections based on gender identity. Judge Danny C. Reeves struck down that rule in January 2025.10NBC News. Judge Scraps Biden’s Title IX Rules
In July 2025, the Department of Justice sued California, alleging that the state’s policy of allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports violates Title IX. The lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages. California officials have said they intend to defend their policies.11Politico. Trump Administration Sues California Over Transgender Athlete Policy12ABC News. DOJ Sues California Transgender Athlete Policies The California case is the one most likely to produce the next major ruling on whether inclusive states can be forced to change course.
Congress has not resolved the question either way. The House passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act in January 2025 by a vote of 218-206, which would have amended Title IX to define sex “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” The Senate blocked the bill in March 2025 on a 51-45 vote, short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.13CNN. Senate Transgender Sports Bill Vote
The Short Answer, by Situation
If you are asking whether a transgender student can play on a team matching their gender identity in a particular state, the answer depends on three layers:
- State law. Twenty-three states have no ban, and the June 2026 ruling does not require them to adopt one.
- State athletic association policy. In friendlier states, a declared gender identity is generally sufficient, with no medical documentation required, and disputes are handled by the school. In states without a statewide policy, including Hawaii, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the rules come from the district or school.
- The level of competition. State inclusion rules do not control NCAA eligibility or U.S. Olympic and Paralympic eligibility, both of which now restrict women’s competition to athletes assigned female at birth.
The practical result is a divided map. A transgender student-athlete’s ability to compete depends almost entirely on where they live and go to school, and in California’s case, on how the pending federal lawsuit is resolved.