Newsom to Still Allow Males in Female Sports Despite SCOTUS Ruling
The SCOTUS ruling is not a national mandate, but the blue states face losses in future cases due to the language in it.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom won’t use the out handed to him on a silver platter and keep males out of female sports.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dealt women a huge victory, ruling that states could keep males out of female sports.
Stop calling them trans women or trans athletes. They are males and will always be males. Plus, the vast majority only identified as trans when they failed to compete against males.
“The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title
IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” wrote the majority.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS didn’t make it a national mandate.
That means blue states that allow males in women’s sports can keep their laws… for now. SCOTUS ruled that “sex” in Title IX means biological sex. Females can use that language to sue and accuse a state or school district of violating Title IX.
Women’s sports win 2-0 at SCOTUS!
Blue states with boys on girls’ podiums . . . you’re next.pic.twitter.com/pc4IPQv7do
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) June 30, 2026
Of course, California allows males to participate in female sports, robbing females of roster spots, medals, and other opportunities.
Newsom’s office confirmed that SCOTUS’s ruling won’t change anything in his state. From Fox News:
“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,” the spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
A source within Newsom’s office provided Fox News Digital a bulleted list titled “As a Governor, Governor Newsom has the strongest record in the country on protecting and expanding transgender rights.”
The list included several bragging points, including “making it easier to update gender markers on official documents,” and “appointed multiple trans judges.”
The list concludes by pointing out, “California is one of 22 states that have laws requiring transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. California passed this law in 2013 (AB 1266) and it was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.”
How about dignity and respect for females? As I said before, the majority of these males didn’t even identify as trans until recently, and after they failed to make a mark playing against males. It’s disgusting.
Newsom has been trying to play both sides, though. Typical politician.
In March 2025, Newson told Charlie Kirk that he agreed with the “unfairness” of males in female sports.
But a month later, Newsom admitted he had no plans to address that unfairness.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
My guess is the Title IX lawsuits will dismantle this. Hate them, but the tort lawyers will see deep pockets in schools, school districts and the state itself.
“the tort lawyers will see deep pockets in schools, school districts and the state itself”
i.e. The Taxpayers
Well, Newsome is a douche. So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.
Yeah he is going to run on that too. Any opponent can take this issue and staple it to his face. It may fly in CA but its an 80/20 issue at least,
Double douche. Extra points if you know.
“How about dignity and respect for females?”
Progressives are taking their cues from their Muslim allies.
Obviously you can believe all women all the time except when transwomen are involved.
Newsom can do what he wants. It’s not like California is part of the United States anyway.
Not to quibble but it’s sad that the scotus has to be in the legislation business, eg., “Unfortunately, SCOTUS didn’t make it a national mandate.” They have the power to do that? They shouldn’t.
I hated their legislating from the bench when it was Roe v Wade, just totally wrong. But. Reality is Congress passes nothing anymore, other than raises for themselves. So the Supreme Court has to do it? Sad.
SC had to do it, in 1974, because Abortion was so unpopular that Congress had not a snowball’s chance in hell of being approved; the SC snuck it in the back door, 50 years later it wins every election. Sad
Courts aren’t legislatures and shouldn’t legislate. In this case the court didn’t; it simply said what the legislation Congress passed means — which is exactly what the courts are for.
That means if a state chooses to have its schools provide girl-only teams (which the courts have previously said states are allowed to do) then it can keep boys out of those teams, because they’re not girls.
Does a state have to provide such teams? If so, then it follows that it has to keep boys off them, but that question wasn’t before the court so it couldn’t say so. Someone will have to raise the issue in a lower court, which can then say, ‘Well, let’s look at the law, bearing in mind that when it says “sex” it means “sex”, and see where that leads us”. No legislation involved, just saying what the existing law says.
To make a point, “trans” athletes will not be barred from participation in school sports due to SCOTUS’ ruling. Most males’ school sports have been open to females for a long time, meaning they are open to students who don’t “identify” as males. This is where trannies can compete, if they have the necessary skills. (They can’t complain that they don’t have a chance of competing against males, as the inability to compete is what generally prevents females from competing in what are actually “open” scholastic athletics. So they will be treated exactly the way actual females are treated when attempting to compete with males.)
Building on this (the “competition” part), there’s a sure way to destroy trans participation in women’s scholastic sports – all the jocks in schools should apply for positions on girls’ teams. They will out-compete both the girls and the trannies. The rules that allow trans athletes to play on girls’ teams can be used to block them from girls’ teams, by their inability to compete with other males (who will swear and cross their hearts that they identify as female). Then what will the trans do? Complain that they’re being blocked from girl’s teams? You mean the way they currently block some actual females from those teams? The absurdity of “trans rights” with regard to scholastic sports will be revealed by the conundrum caused by stupid rules.
Newsom really has no choice here. If he were to propose a law banning boys from girls’ teams the legislature wouldn’t pass it. He has no choice but to continue with the current law until some girl sues her school district for the Title 9 right to play on a girls-only team, and a court orders the district to resegregate school sports. Then he can advise all school districts to do the same, if they don’t want to face a suit of their own.
Unfortunately that is what it will take to dismantle the boys in girls sports farce. Leaders lead. Newscum is not a leader. Nor is there any leaders in the one party legislature in Commiefornia. Because 22 states codified the ability for boys to play in girls sports. It will take 22 separate Title IX lawsuits. The only ray of sunshine in this situation is the dismantling of the trans farce in public school systems and colleges with sports.
I don’t think it’ll take 22 suits. Once a court rules squarely that federal law requires public schools to have girl-only teams, or at least that if a school chooses to have what purports to be a girl-only team it must in fact have only girls, I think the other states will have to fall in line.
I think you mi underestimate the corruption of the lower courts. I will bet you dollars to donuts that a district court will ignore this ruling and claim title IX still permits a state legislature to allow trans “women” into women’s sports. California is currently thumbing their nose at, Bruen.
Greasom needs a psychological evaluation before he’s allowed to run for any other public parasite office.
Try and send those he/she’s to another state contest. Let’s see how that works out Gavin (D-POS)
“Unfortunately, SCOTUS didn’t make it a national mandate.”
*****
“Virtually all significant federal education funding to public schools, colleges, universities, and state education agencies is tied to Title IX compliance.”
Seems like enforcement is now up to Dept. of Education. If/when they cut funding and woke judges rule that funding can’t be cut….then what?
Then you take it to the appeals court, which must adhere to SCOTUS’s determination that in Title 9 “sex” means “sex”.
Newsom will remain a Democrat.
If Newsom ignores the Supreme Court decision, what will happen to him and the state of California? He will likely be sued under Title IX. This is modern America where there is no one legal standard that can be depended upon, nor any judge that can be depended to follow the Law or the Constitution. There is an excellent chance, especially if the case is brought in a Leftist state, that Newsom will win. If he does not win, then some Federal Judge in say Guam or Outer Mongolia (/sarc) will place an injunction on this and all subsequent suits until it works its way up through the judicial chain to the Supreme Court [we are talking a lot of years here] and the game starts all over again. The coercive organs of State power will not be used against the Left.
This will make Newsom immensely personally popular with Democrats, Socialist Democrats, and all of the Left. Assuming that we are still having real elections in 2028 [remember, that same Supreme Court functionally gave Democrats 5 days after election day to create and count fraudulent ballots]. And Newsom is likely going to be the Democrat candidate. Unless, of course, the Bolsheviki go after the Mensheviki..
Subotai Bahadur
The ballots must have a valid Election Day post mark to be counted within that 5 day period. The President should direct the Post Office to have a special post mark for Election Day only. Expensive? Yes, but at least it will thwart one avenue of cheating.
The ballots must have a valid postmark from Election Day or earlier.
Theoretically.
Yeah, sure. If people cannot make it to the polling place on Election Day (an excuse provided by the Democrats), why would one expect them to make it to the post office to get their ballot postmarked? (Dropping a ballot in a mailbox does not guarantee a postmark for the day it was dropped.) Anyway it’s a moot point: they are not going to check postmarks. Who are we kidding?
Dropping a ballot in a mailbox does guarantee a postmark no earlier than the day it was dropped. The postmark may be for that day, or it may be later, but it can’t be earlier. Which means a postmark on election day or earlier proves that it was mailed on time, before election day was over. Which means Moe’s suggestion of a special postmark for election day only would not be very useful.
And yes, of course they check postmarks. What makes you think they don’t?
What’s a valid postmark? In some states, a handwritten date suffices. That’s an invitation to fraud.
If you can create fraudulent ballots, fraudulent postmarks are a piece of cake. Especially if those looking at said postmarks have an ideological predisposition to look the other way when one [or thousands] comes through.
Subotai Bahadur
Generally the ballots aren’t forgeries, they’re real ballots but they were not filled in by the voter who is supposed to have cast them.
In the scenario we’re discussing, the fraudsters obtain a supply of genuine blank ballots, and a list of registered voters who did not vote, whether because they didn’t bother or because they don’t exist, or don’t know they’re registered. A sufficient number of such voters are identified and marked off in the roll as having voted, ballots are filled in for them, and they’re dumped in the mail. If they do this after the election, then the post office will stamp them with a postmark that is after the election date. It might be the day they dump them, or it might be the next day, but it won’t be the previous day.
Are they not counted by bipartisan teams (one from each major party), and under the observation of monitors from each party? They would see any such shenanigans. Unless you have a situation such as in NYC, where there aren’t enough registered Republicans, so some registered Democrats are assigned to be “Republicans for a day”. All the ones I know who do this are honest about it, but I wouldn’t bet that they all are.
when newsom’s term is over he’d best learn to be careful out there
The way to solve this is for competitive female collegiate athletes to go to other schools outside of CA. This will make their female sports wither and die while other states will thrive.
Note that this SCOTUS decision is not at all inconsistent with its previous decisions on the “trans” issue. SCOTUS has never held that transsexuals are the sex they claim to be. The Bostock decision is often misrepresented as having held that, but it didn’t. All Bostock says is that if you allow your female employees to come to work in female attire, and you don’t allow a “trans-female” employee to do the same, then you’re discriminating against him because of his sex, i.e. not because he’s a real woman, but precisely because he’s a man.
Hopefully SCOTUS ruling can be expanded and this signals the beginning of the end of the gender ideology war on women.
How will this work when women’s team with men play against women who don’t have men on their team? The team that not cheating on should have the schools men’s team feel like women so they can play the cheaters.
Let the blue state $#!+holes keep up this insanity. Just one more reason for the sane to move to states that will safeguard the right of biological females to compete on a level playing field, not tilted woke-prog to sate the mentally deluded.