Two transgender teenage athletes have dropped their federal lawsuit challenging New Hampshire's law barring biological males from competing in girls' sports, a quiet surrender that came after the U.S. Supreme Court removed the legal ground beneath their case.
Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, the plaintiffs who originally filed suit in 2024, dismissed their challenge in U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire following the high court's landmark June 30 ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. In that 6-3 decision, the justices upheld state laws requiring student-athletes to compete on teams that correspond with their biological sex at birth, not their gender identity.
With that ruling on the books, the New Hampshire plaintiffs had nowhere left to go. Their attorneys at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, known as GLAD, did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. The silence speaks for itself.
The lawsuit targeted a New Hampshire state law that prohibits transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports. Tirrell and Turmelle argued the law violated federal equal protection guarantees and Title IX rights. Their legal team also pointed to a January 20 executive order signed by President Donald Trump that forbids federal money from being used to promote gender ideology, claiming it subjected transgender students to discrimination.
But the case never gained the traction its backers wanted. The U.S. District Court ruled that female athletes represented by Alliance Defending Freedom were permitted to intervene in the case to defend New Hampshire's law and the administration's executive orders. That meant real girls, the ones the law was designed to protect, had a seat at the table.
Then came the Supreme Court's June 30 decision, which settled the constitutional question at the heart of the dispute. The landmark rulings this term left no viable path for the plaintiffs. They dismissed the suit rather than fight a losing battle on appeal.
Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy at Alliance Defending Freedom, issued a statement framing the outcome as a victory for fairness in women's athletics:
"Women and girls deserve privacy, safety, and equal opportunities. That can't happen when males are competing in women's sports, taking spots on women's athletic teams, and winning women's championships."
Scruggs also credited the broader legal and executive landscape that made the dismissal inevitable. He pointed to both the Supreme Court ruling and the Trump administration's actions as reinforcing what he called common sense.
"President Trump's executive orders and New Hampshire's law recognize common sense and track Title IX, the federal law that ensures equal opportunities for women in athletics. We are grateful this case is coming to an end and that New Hampshire is free to protect its female athletes."
The statement captures a straightforward principle that has animated the debate from the beginning: Title IX was written to give women and girls a fair shot. Letting biological males compete against them defeats the purpose of the law.
The administration played a direct role in the New Hampshire case. After President Trump signed the "No Men in Women's Sports" executive order on February 5, 2025, his administration was added as a defendant. The earlier January 20 order had already cut off federal funding for programs that promote gender ideology in schools.
Together, the two executive orders created a federal policy framework that aligned with what states like New Hampshire had already enacted on their own. The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling then cemented the constitutional foundation beneath those state laws.
The combined effect was decisive. Plaintiffs who had hoped to use federal courts to override state-level protections for female athletes found themselves boxed in from every direction, by the White House, by Congress's original intent in Title IX, and by the nation's highest court.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the fight is far from over nationwide. Twenty-three states still do not have laws prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in girls' sports. Some of those states, including California, New York, and Massachusetts, have gone further, enacting laws that actively protect transgender athletes' participation on girls' teams.
That gap matters. The Supreme Court upheld the right of states to pass such laws. It did not require every state to do so. In progressive strongholds, governors like Gavin Newsom have doubled down on policies that put gender identity above biological reality in school athletics.
The result is a patchwork. Girls in New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Idaho now have legal protections ensuring they compete against other biological females. Girls in New York and California do not.
Former NCAA All-American Riley Gaines, who has become the most prominent advocate for female athletes in this debate, weighed in forcefully. In a Fox News segment, Gaines called the effort to fight biological sex protections in sports "insane" and labeled the opposing movement "utterly misogynistic."
Her argument is blunt and hard to refute on its merits: women fought for decades to secure equal athletic opportunity under Title IX. Rewriting the rules to allow biological males into women's competition erases those gains.
This Supreme Court term has produced a string of consequential decisions reshaping the legal landscape. The Court's 6-3 ruling backing the Trump administration on green card enforcement drew fierce dissent from Justice Jackson, and other major cases have continued to test the boundaries of executive and state authority.
The dismissal in New Hampshire closes one courtroom door, but the broader legal and political contest will continue. Advocacy groups on the left have signaled they will keep pressing challenges in states where they believe the political climate is more favorable. The 23 states without protections remain open terrain.
For now, the trajectory favors the girls. The Supreme Court has spoken. The executive branch has acted. And in New Hampshire, two plaintiffs who sought to override a law protecting female athletes walked away without a fight.
The legal questions that remain will play out against a backdrop of continued Supreme Court battles over the scope of federal power and constitutional rights. But on the specific question of whether states can protect girls' sports, the answer is now settled law.
Title IX was never meant to be a weapon against the women it was written to protect. The Supreme Court finally said so, and the other side folded.