Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz took to social media Tuesday to denounce the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision upholding state bans on biological males competing in girls' sports, and within hours, a parade of critics from his own state turned his chosen word against him. The governor called the ruling "cruel." Conservatives lined up to explain what cruelty actually looks like for the girls on the other side of his policy preferences.
The high court's decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox settled a question that had roiled school athletics across the country: whether state laws requiring student-athletes to compete on teams matching their biological sex violate the Constitution or Title IX. The answer, from a six-justice majority, was no on both counts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that states "may maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females" on grounds of safety and competitive fairness, AP News reported. Kavanaugh wrote that "the Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America."
The ruling carries immediate weight well beyond Idaho and West Virginia. More than two dozen Republican-led states have adopted similar bans, and the decision is expected to extend to all of them. National Review noted that the majority opinion found that "sex" in Title IX refers to biological sex, not gender identity, particularly in the context of athletics, effectively upholding restrictions in 27 states including Florida and Texas.
Walz wasted no time framing the decision as an act of hostility toward children. His post on X read: "As the Supreme Court says states can be cruel to trans kids, my message is clear: Here in Minnesota, we stand with and value our trans neighbors and youth."
Later in the day, speaking to reporters, the governor softened slightly, but not much. He told Fox 9 Minneapolis that "the Supreme Court has allowed states to be as cruel as they want to be to transgender people," then added that the ruling also "allowed states like Minnesota to be as kind and welcoming as they can." He called it "a mixed bag."
Then came the line that drew the sharpest reaction. Walz dismissed the entire debate as overblown:
"This idea of folks who have never been to any youth event are hell-bent on making sure some kid doesn't participate in bowling is ludicrous. I think Minnesotans find there's a lot of other things to worry about than three little kids wanting to play sports somewhere."
Three little kids wanting to play bowling. That was the governor's summary of a legal question the Supreme Court took up in two separate cases, involving two states, with implications for athletic programs serving millions of female students nationwide.
The backlash from within Walz's own state was swift and pointed. Minnesota Republican state Sen. Julia Coleman posted a response that reframed "cruel" from the perspective of the girls Walz did not mention:
"What's cruel is making a teenage girl, already uncomfortable in her own skin, change in a locker room next to a naked boy. What's cruel is letting our girls get the s*** kicked out of them by biological males on the field and lose out on scholarships and more chances to compete. What's cruel is putting your base above female safety and opportunities."
Coleman's post cut to the core of the disconnect in Walz's framing. The governor spoke of kindness and inclusion. He did not address the competitive disadvantage imposed on female athletes, the scholarship opportunities at stake, or the privacy concerns in locker rooms. Coleman did.
The governor's record on other fronts has drawn sustained scrutiny as well. A House oversight report found that his administration sat on fraud warnings while billions in federal funds drained from Minnesota, a pattern of governance that critics say reflects misplaced priorities.
Minnesota Republican state Sen. Michael Holmstrom went further, posting on X that "true cruelty to these children is perpetuating the LIE that they can be a different gender. The consequence of which is the destruction of lives, and the victimization of girls across the state. The DFL has lost reality."
Retired Minnesota State Patrol Lt. John Nagel, now running for Congress as a Republican in Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, directed his criticism squarely at the governor's credibility:
"Once again you disregard the laws of America. You don't support women's rights. You don't stand for anything. You are the face of everything that is wrong with the Democratic party."
Renee Carlson, an attorney at True North Legal, posed a question Walz has not answered: "Which Minnesota girl deserves to lose her spot on a team to a male athlete?"
The scope of the decision is broad. With the court's blessing, more than half of U.S. states can now enforce women's sports protections without fear of legal challenge. Twenty-three states, including California, New York, and Massachusetts, still lack such laws. Some of those 23 have gone the other direction, enacting laws that affirmatively protect transgender athletes' participation in girls' sports.
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst argued before the court that the bans were "necessary for fair competition because, where sports are concerned, men and women are obviously not the same," Newsmax reported. The court agreed.
The ruling also fits a broader pattern. Breitbart noted that the court's conservative majority has repeatedly ruled against expanding transgender legal protections over the past year, including upholding state bans on gender-affirming care for minors. The legal landscape has shifted decisively, and Walz's attempt to characterize the ruling as an outlier act of cruelty ignores the direction of both the law and public opinion.
The decision was unanimous on one key point: all nine justices agreed that barring biological males from girls' sports does not violate Title IX. The 6-3 split concerned the broader constitutional question. That unanimity on the statutory question makes Walz's "cruel" framing even harder to sustain. Not a single justice, liberal or conservative, found that federal anti-discrimination law required schools to let biological males compete on girls' teams.
Walz announced in January that he would not seek re-election. His departure from the governor's mansion comes amid a series of controversies that extend well beyond the transgender sports debate.
Vice President Vance referred Walz and Minnesota's attorney general to the DOJ fraud division for criminal investigation, a referral rooted in allegations of massive misuse of federal funds under his watch.
In March, Walz testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a hearing examining alleged misuse of federal funds for Minnesota social services and Medicaid programs. The fraud allegations have dogged his final year in office and shaped how both allies and opponents view his judgment.
Townhall columnist Dustin Grage captured the mood of many Minnesota conservatives: "Worst Governor in America. Thankfully we have exposed him and he'll be headed to retirement soon. Good riddance, Tim."
The broader pattern is hard to miss. Walz has faced sustained questions about fraud on his watch, federal investigations into his administration's handling of public money, and now a Supreme Court ruling that flatly rejects the legal framework he championed on transgender athletes.
Fox News Digital reached out to Walz's office for comment on the backlash to his post. The article did not indicate whether his office responded.
The governor's framing of the ruling as an attack on children depends on the listener never asking the obvious follow-up: What about the girls? Walz spoke of "three little kids wanting to play sports somewhere", a deliberate minimization of a policy that affects female athletes in every state that lacks a biological-sex requirement.
He did not address the competitive gap between biological males and females. He did not address locker room privacy. He did not address the growing political cost of his position within his own state. He called the ruling cruel and moved on, as if naming the emotion settled the argument.
Sen. Coleman, Lt. Nagel, attorney Carlson, and Sen. Holmstrom all asked variations of the same question Walz refuses to engage: Who is harmed when biological males take roster spots, podium finishes, and scholarships from female athletes? The Supreme Court answered that question. Walz still won't.
When a governor calls it "cruel" to protect girls' sports and dismisses the whole issue as a fight over bowling, the cruelty isn't coming from the court.
