Table of Contents
Get our free local reporting delivered straight to your inbox. No noise, no spam — just clear, independent coverage of Marblehead. Sign up for our once-a-week newsletter.
The message went out from a second-floor office on East India Square in Salem, Massachusetts, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "Our hearts break for you, and our spirit stays strong for you."
The North Shore Alliance of GLBTQ Youth, known as NAGLY, was writing to transgender, nonbinary and intersex young people, telling them a decision handed down in Washington had not changed Massachusetts law — while acknowledging how heavily it landed anyway.
The court ruled 6-3 on June 30 that West Virginia and Idaho may bar transgender girls and women from girls' and women's school sports teams, rejecting challenges brought under the U.S. Constitution and Title IX in two consolidated cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. Within hours, the attorney general, the governor and both Democratic Senate primary rivals had weighed in — a measure of how fast a question about two other states' laws became a Massachusetts story.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said states may maintain women's and girls' sports for what the opinion called biological females.
"The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America," he wrote.
All nine justices agreed the laws did not violate Title IX, the 1972 federal law barring sex discrimination in education; the court split 6-3 on the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, writing that the majority reserved its sympathy for the cisgender athletes it favored.
The reach is narrower than the reaction suggests. The court held that states may exclude transgender girls — not that they must; the ruling does not force states with inclusive policies to abandon them, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights noted. The majority tied its reasoning to the distinct context of sports and left unresolved whether transgender girls who have taken puberty blockers hold any competitive advantage.
That distinction — permission, not mandate — is why state officials say nothing changes here for now. Chapter 76, Section 5 of the General Laws bars discrimination in public schools on account of gender identity, and its regulations state that a student shall have the opportunity to play on the team consistent with the student's gender identity. The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association defers to the student and the school on gender classification, and the state education department has guided schools on the equal treatment of transgender students since 2013.
"Massachusetts law continues to protect transgender students, including student athletes who play sports in accordance with their gender identity," Campbell said, adding that her office is reviewing the decision carefully.
Healey, speaking to reporters June 30, said she had not read the full opinion and that any statewide implications would fall to the MIAA — one of 21 states, according to WBUR, that still let transgender girls play on female teams.
For NAGLY, the timing compounded the substance. The group said the decision felt especially egregious arriving on the final day of Pride Month, and argued the ruling hides behind the idea of sex as an immutable characteristic. It pledged to remain "a safe and affirming space for you, empowering you to thrive as your AUTHENTIC selves."
The question is not hypothetical on the North Shore. In 2024, a girls' basketball game between KIPP Academy of Lynn and Collegiate Charter School of Lowell drew national attention when Lowell forfeited at halftime, citing players' fears of injury involving a KIPP student who identifies as transgender and had played volleyball and track without incident. The number of transgender athletes statewide is unknown; in a 2021-22 MIAA survey, 915 of 302,597 participants — 0.3 percent — checked an "other" box that could include them. For families in Marblehead, Salem and neighboring districts, officials say eligibility rules from last school year hold, though districts weighing individual cases are advised to consult counsel.
The ruling also detonated in the middle of a Democratic Senate primary. Sen. Edward Markey, Senate author of the Trans Bill of Rights, called the decision "inhumane and unjust" and said the court "has become Trump and MAGA Republicans' tool to persecute and dehumanize the trans community." He demanded that his challenger, U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton of Salem, answer for comments Moulton made to The New York Times in November 2024:
"I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that."
Markey's campaign said Moulton reaffirmed those remarks to The Washington Post in April; that claim comes from the campaign and could not be independently verified.
Moulton, responding to questions from the Marblehead Independent, condemned the ruling in terms nearly as sharp.
"Releasing this decision on the last day of Pride is a deliberate act of cruelty toward transgender Americans," he said.
His campaign said he believes the court was wrong, that Massachusetts protections "should absolutely be maintained," and that he voted against H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025. It called Markey's attack "old school thinking, born from his 50-years in Washington," citing Moulton's 100 percent Human Rights Campaign voting record.
The fight is a fault line ahead of the Sept. 1 primary. Moulton, who launched his October challenge against the 79-year-old Markey on a message of generational change, has trailed by 23 points in a November Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll. Markey won the party's endorsement at its May convention, declaring the state "deserves better than a senator who scapegoats trans kids."
Nationally, reaction split along familiar lines. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented both athletes, called it "a heartbreaking ruling," and Jennifer Levi of Boston-based GLAD Law said categorical bans "mandate exclusion," while supporters cast the decision as a win for fairness in girls' sports.
The two athletes — Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho — return to lower courts. What North Shore families should watch: Campbell's review, any new MIAA or state guidance, and whether litigants test Massachusetts' inclusive policies in court, a question the justices left open.
For now, NAGLY's answer was addressed not to lawyers or campaigns but to teenagers checking their phones on the first day of July. If you need resources, the group wrote, reach out. We are here for you.
We covered this so readers could see what the Supreme Court decision does — and does not — change for Massachusetts families, schools and student athletes. Membership keeps that kind of careful, local reporting free to read, with time for context, follow-up calls and clear explanations of what comes next. While this story is still fresh, reader support helps keep the Indy available to the whole town. 🟦 Become a member here.
