A Washington state high school wrestler and her mother have asked the US Supreme Court to temporarily block policies allowing transgender student-athletes to compete in school sports consistent with their gender identity.
A legal challenge to transgender participation in US school sport has reached the Supreme Court, with a Washington state student seeking emergency intervention before the upcoming wrestling season.
The athlete, identified in court documents as K.M.K., and her mother, Stephanie Brown, have filed an emergency application asking the Court to block policies maintained by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association and Puyallup School District while their wider appeal continues.
They argue those policies violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, and Brown also raises constitutional claims concerning parental rights.
“High-school athletics are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities,” their application says, arguing K.M.K. risks missing opportunities in soccer and wrestling if the rules remain in place.
The Supreme Court has asked the WIAA and Puyallup School District to respond by 13 October.
What led to the lawsuit?
The case, Brown v Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, was filed in June following a wrestling match in December 2025 between K.M.K. and a transgender girl.
Brown and her daughter allege that they were not told beforehand that K.M.K.’s opponent was transgender.
They also alleged that contact made during the match amounted to sexual assault and reported the incident to authorities.
However, Pierce County prosecutors declined to file criminal charges after reviewing the incident. Reporting on the case says prosecutors concluded the contact at issue was consistent with physical contact that can occur during wrestling competition.
The allegation of sexual assault therefore remains an allegation made by the plaintiffs and should not be presented as an established criminal finding.
Lower courts have so far rejected emergency relief
K.M.K. and Brown previously asked a federal district court for a preliminary injunction.
They sought, among other things, advance notice whenever K.M.K. might compete against a transgender athlete and the ability to opt out without negative consequences.
After the district court denied that request, they appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On 25 September, the Ninth Circuit also refused to grant emergency relief.
The appeals court said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated an immediate emergency and had not met the demanding legal standard required for an injunction pending appeal.
The court also noted that the school district had said K.M.K. could forfeit matches against transgender opponents without being penalised by the district.
It expressed concern that requiring schools to identify transgender athletes in advance could involve collecting or disclosing sensitive information about other students.
The underlying appeal itself remains unresolved.
Washington says it is following state law
The WIAA says its policy reflects Washington law.
“The WIAA remains committed to following Washington state law which permits student-athletes to participate in sports consistent with the gender with which they identify,” a spokesperson said.
“If state law changes in the future, the WIAA holds the authority to revise policies as necessary to remain in compliance with state law.”
The Supreme Court application now asks the justices to intervene while the litigation continues.
What did the Supreme Court decide in June?
The Washington case arrives just months after the Supreme Court issued a major ruling on transgender participation in school sport.
On 30 June 2026, the Court upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that restrict participation on girls’ and women’s teams on the basis of biological sex.
The Court held that those state laws did not violate Title IX and, by a divided vote on the constitutional issue, upheld the sex-based classifications against equal-protection challenges.
But that ruling answered a narrower question than the one now emerging from Washington.
It established that states can maintain sex-based eligibility rules for girls’ and women’s sport.
It did not decide that states must exclude transgender girls and women, or that policies allowing athletes to compete according to gender identity violate Title IX.
The Washington application is seeking to push the Court towards that next question.
Trans sports policy is also on Washington’s ballot
The legal dispute is unfolding alongside a statewide political battle.
Washington voters will decide Initiative IL26-638 at the 3 November general election.
The measure would change state law so that students competing in girls’ interscholastic sport would have to meet sex-based eligibility requirements.
Its text would also require verification of biological sex through documentation from a healthcare provider relying on factors such as reproductive anatomy, genetics or naturally produced testosterone.
The initiative gathered enough valid signatures to qualify and has been certified for the November ballot.
Supporters argue the measure is necessary for fairness and safety in girls’ sport.
Opponents argue it would exclude transgender girls and could subject a much wider group of female students to intrusive sex-verification requirements.
Those arguments are being put directly to Washington voters.
What happens next?
The immediate question before the Supreme Court is not whether Washington’s policy is ultimately lawful.
It is whether the justices should impose an injunction while K.M.K. and Brown continue their appeal.
The WIAA and Puyallup School District have until 13 October to file their responses.
That means the Court could soon provide another indication of how far its June ruling on transgender athletes extends — and whether permitting transgender girls to compete is legally different from requiring states to exclude them.
