The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that states may ban biological males from competing in women's and girls' sports, and within hours, Gavin Newsom's office announced that California would ignore the decision's implications and press ahead with policies that allow transgender athletes to do exactly what 27 other states have now moved to stop.
The governor's spokesperson told Fox News Digital that California's laws remain "unaffected" by the ruling. The statement was direct and unapologetic:
"The Supreme Court's decision does not affect California's laws. The state remains committed to ensuring every Californian, including the LGBTQ community, is met with dignity and respect."
That framing, treating the issue as a matter of dignity rather than competitive fairness, landed Newsom squarely in the crosshairs of women's sports advocates, parents, and the Trump administration's Department of Justice, which has already filed Title IX lawsuits against California education agencies over these very policies.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion in the June 30, 2026 ruling, which upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho prohibiting male transgender athletes from competing on female teams. The decision was unambiguous. As National Review reported, Kavanaugh wrote that the term "sex" in Title IX "cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex."
The majority opinion went further:
"The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America."
And further still: "We hold that the States may maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports based on biological sex."
The ruling carries weight well beyond Idaho and West Virginia. More than two dozen Republican-led states have adopted similar bans, and the Court's decision effectively validates every one of them. The Associated Press noted that California is specifically among the states with unresolved lawsuits challenging laws that permit transgender athletes to compete consistent with their gender identity.
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst, who argued the case, called the bans "necessary for fair competition because, where sports are concerned, men and women are obviously not the same," as Newsmax reported.
What makes the governor's defiance particularly notable is that Newsom himself has already conceded the core point. In March 2025, appearing on his podcast with the late Charlie Kirk, Newsom said he believed males competing in girls' sports is "deeply unfair."
Deeply unfair. His words.
Yet when the nation's highest court issued a ruling that gives states clear authority to address that unfairness, Newsom's office responded not with a plan to protect girls, but with a bulleted list of the governor's transgender rights credentials. That list, provided to Fox News Digital, was titled: "As a Governor, Governor Newsom has the strongest record in the country on protecting and expanding transgender rights." It cited items like "making it easier to update gender markers on official documents" and noting that Newsom has "appointed multiple trans judges."
None of that has anything to do with whether a biological male should be allowed to take a state championship from a girl who trained her whole life for it. Newsom's response was a political résumé dressed up as a policy statement, a signal to progressive donors and Democratic primary voters, not to the parents and female athletes living with the consequences of his policies.
This pattern of Newsom talking tough on one day and brushing off Supreme Court rulings the next has become a defining feature of his governorship.
The controversy is not abstract in California. It has a name: AB Hernandez, a trans athlete who won two track and field state titles for the second straight year. At the previous year's championships, Hernandez won state finals in the triple jump and high jump and took second place in the long jump, all in girls' competition.
Those results prompted the Trump administration's DOJ to file Title IX lawsuits against California education agencies. The lawsuit, officially launched in July, targeted the policies that allowed Hernandez to compete against biological females.
When Hernandez held a news conference, Newsom's office issued another statement, this time attacking critics rather than addressing the competitive imbalance:
"The Governor has said discussions on this issue should be guided by fairness, dignity, and respect. He rejects the right wing's cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids. The Governor's position is simple: stand with all kids and stand up to bullies."
Notice the sleight of hand. The girls who lost their state titles to a biological male are also kids. Standing "with all kids" apparently does not include standing with the ones who got displaced from the podium.
California faced national media attention over trans athletes in girls' sports in May for the second consecutive year, the third such episode within a single year. Former NCAA women's soccer player Sophia Lorey led "Save Girls Sports" protesters in scheduling a news conference near the competition grounds ahead of the first round of the state tournament in early May.
Prominent women's sports advocates including Riley Gaines and Jennifer Sey condemned Newsom's stance on social media after his office released its post-ruling statement. The backlash was swift and broad, and entirely predictable given the gap between what the governor says privately and what his office does publicly.
President Trump has made his position plain. As Breitbart reported, Trump stated that "it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities." The DOJ's Title IX lawsuits against California education agencies represent the enforcement arm of that policy.
The legal landscape has shifted dramatically. Twenty-seven states now have bans upheld or validated by the Supreme Court's ruling. California stands on the opposite side, one of a shrinking number of states clinging to policies that allow biological males in girls' locker rooms, on girls' starting lines, and on girls' medal stands.
Newsom's office can claim the ruling "does not affect California's laws" all it wants. What it cannot do is make the federal Title IX lawsuits disappear. And it cannot erase the plain language of a 6-3 Supreme Court majority that said biological sex is biological sex.
The governor is no stranger to combative postures toward federal institutions. But defiance has a cost. When the DOJ is already in court against your state's education agencies, and the Supreme Court has just handed down a ruling that validates the federal government's legal theory, doubling down is not courage. It is a calculated bet that progressive applause is worth more than the competitive futures of California's female athletes.
There is a question at the center of this that the governor's office keeps dodging. If males competing in girls' sports is "deeply unfair", Newsom's own words, then why is California still allowing it?
The answer is obvious to anyone watching. Newsom has national ambitions. His record on transgender rights is, by his own office's admission, designed to be "the strongest in the country." That record is a calling card for a Democratic presidential primary electorate that treats any concession on gender ideology as apostasy.
Meanwhile, girls in California keep losing. They lose races, they lose titles, they lose scholarships, and they lose the basic promise that sex-separated sports exist to give them a fair shot. The Supreme Court's recent willingness to take on these questions directly suggests the legal reckoning for states like California is far from over.
Newsom acknowledged the unfairness himself. The Supreme Court affirmed it with a supermajority. The DOJ is litigating it in federal court. And still, the governor's office responds with a list of transgender rights accomplishments and an accusation that anyone who disagrees is a bully.
The governor faces mounting pressures on multiple fronts, but on this issue, the political math is simple: he has chosen a constituency over a principle he already admitted was right.
When a governor calls something "deeply unfair" and then fights to keep it going, the problem isn't confusion. It's priorities.
