Skip to content

Worth Fighting · Education research

2026 Girls’ Sports & School Privacy Report: What the Reviewed Sample Shows

Reviewed October 10, 2026 · Primary documents, visible evidence gaps

This October 10, 2026 report describes a purposive sample of seven states, 20 organizations, eight federal matters and five cases. These are record counts, not estimates of national prevalence or compliance.

State and association patterns

The reviewed texts show several distinct approaches: New Hampshire’s enacted sex-based team eligibility rule; Washington’s equal-opportunity regulation and WIAA gender-identity procedures; Minnesota statutory protections and the MSHSL bylaw; and Maryland guidance with a separately documented MCPS local handbook. California, Colorado and Michigan remain research records because current controlling-document coverage is incomplete.

Federal enforcement patterns

The sample contains opening announcements, reported agency findings, a stated referral, a warning of possible enforcement and actual complaints. A grouped announcement remains one federal matter even when it names several districts. No executed resolution agreement was independently verified for these eight matters. That is a limitation of this review, not a claim that no agreement exists.

Litigation posture and unresolved questions

The joint Supreme Court opinion and the West Virginia remand order support two detailed case pages. The California/CIF operative dismissal order was inaccessible. The Minnesota DOJ case has a verified complaint but an incomplete later docket. Female Athletes United has a reviewed April preliminary-relief decision; its subsequent course requires further checking. No appeal is treated as an automatic stay.

Sports and privacy require separate documents

MCPS’s 2026–2027 handbook separately addresses team eligibility, facilities, requested privacy alternatives and overnight arrangements. NCAA competition rules do not supply a campus lodging policy. These examples explain why a single “allows/bans” label cannot describe all the decisions families face.

Publication decisions

Detailed state pages: Washington, Minnesota, Maryland and New Hampshire. Detailed organization pages: WIAA, NCAA, MCPS, CHSAA, Onalaska and MSHSL. Detailed case pages: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. Remaining candidates stay in the databases with their missing evidence visible.

WA

Washington

Regulation and 2026–2027 manual reviewed

MN

Minnesota

Statutes, federal action and appellate opinion reviewed

MD

Maryland

State guidance and current district handbook distinguished

Next research priorities

  1. Retrieve California’s operative dismissal order and any appeal, then verify current CIF text.
  2. Check post-June Minnesota and Jeffco dockets and agency files.
  3. Obtain current MHSAA and MPSSAA manuals and their adoption records.
  4. Review New Hampshire operative trial orders and association implementation.
  5. Expand direct district-policy and meeting-minute coverage without collecting student information.

Methodology and limitations

This is a purposive seven-state research sample, not a census of U.S. schools, laws, athletes or enforcement activity. The 20 organizations were selected for official policy documents or a documented connection to the reviewed federal matters.

Record units differ: one state record, one organization record, one federal matter or grouped announcement, and one court case. A multi-district announcement counts once in the federal table. The same organization may appear in several tables; counts must not be added as unique institutions.

Source priority is enacted law; operative court opinion/order and official docket; signed agreements and official letters; agency announcements; association manuals; district policies and board records; then party filings. Party allegations and legal positions are attributed. A docket mirror is a research lead where direct court access failed.

October 10, 2026 is the last-check date, not the date of every source or a claim that all later events were available. Each record states the latest independently reviewed event. Older official documents and blocked sources are identified explicitly.

Four state pages and six organization pages were selected for differentiated, usable primary-document detail. Two Supreme Court case pages have controlling opinions. Other candidates remain research records, with specific reasons for withholding a standalone page.

Written policy does not establish actual compliance or implementation. We did not request student records, inspect facilities, evaluate individual athletes or reproduce names or identifying circumstances of minors. Public case pseudonyms are used only to identify the requested cases.

Unknown/not located means the reviewed evidence does not establish the answer. It does not mean no policy, no investigation, noncompliance, or a legally required practice. Conflicting dates are not silently reconciled; publication dates do not substitute for adoption/effective dates.

Corrections should identify the record and attach a public primary document through the site corrections route. Subsequent updates should preserve old dated exports, revise affected records and record the precise change.

Download the reviewed sample

Files contain UTF-8 text. CSV cells beginning with spreadsheet-formula prefixes are escaped. Source URLs, source IDs, tracker URLs, check dates and unknown fields are preserved.

Use under Worth Fighting Dataset Terms.

Update log

  1. Initial researched release: seven state records, 20 organizations, eight federal matters and five cases. Four state, six organization and two case detail pages published. Blocked documents and subsequent-docket gaps retained.

Have a newer public document? Send a correction with the record name and source.