SALEM, Ore. (KATU) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender girls and women from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams.

The decision could influence future policy debates in Oregon, but does not immediately change the state’s rules.

Oregon continues to allow students to participate in school sports, physical education, and other school activities in accordance with their gender identity.

The Oregon School Activities Association, which oversees high school sports statewide, said it is reviewing the ruling with legal counsel.

“The Oregon School Activities Association is reviewing today’s Supreme Court ruling with our legal counsel. The association will work with the Oregon Department of Education on the ruling’s impacts on state law and OSAA policy in order to provide updated guidance to member schools as needed. The OSAA remains committed to ensuring interscholastic activities remain a safe and welcoming environment for all student-athletes,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

While Tuesday’s ruling leaves Oregon’s current policy in place, political scientists say it could reshape the legal landscape surrounding future proposals.

“This particular decision, coupled with a federal push, may end up altering the landscape of opportunities in states that affirm trans athletic participation,” said Allison Gash, chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon.

SEE ALSO | Supreme Court ruling preserves Oregon law protecting late-arriving mail ballots

Gash said the Supreme Court’s decision itself does not require Oregon to change its policies.

Instead, she said the more immediate question is how the Trump administration chooses to respond.

“Where we could see some required movement on the part of Oregon or where it may impact Oregon directly is how the federal government determines what it wants to do in light of today’s ruling,” said Gash.

According to Gash, the administration has argued that schools should separate sports teams based on biological sex under its interpretation of Title IX.

“One of the several efforts that the federal government is taking to ensure that all states bar trans female athletes in particular from participating in women’s sports is to tie the provision of federal funding to essentially a ban,” she said.

She added that the Supreme Court’s ruling could make the administration “more muscular in those efforts because now the court has essentially upheld that interpretation.”

Oregon leaders respond

House Republicans unsuccessfully pushed legislation during the 2025 legislative session that would have required school sports teams to be separated based on biological sex, but the bill failed in the Democratic-controlled House.

The bill was sponsored by then state representative Christine Drazan, the 2026 Republican candidate for Governor.

In a news release Tuesday, Drazan welcomed the ruling, calling it “a victory for fairness, for common sense, and for progress.”

“Girls and young women across Oregon are still competing on an unfair and unsafe playing field. I have always supported women’s right to compete, and as Governor, I will do everything in my power to make sure that women’s sports are protected and girls across our state get their shot to compete and win,” said Drazan.

KATU asked Governor Tina Kotek whether she supports legislative or executive action to maintain Oregon’s current policy following the ruling.

The governor’s office had not responded by publication.

Meanwhile, Oregon Senate Democrats said in a news release that the decision does not change students’ rights in Oregon, and they vowed to continue to protect the policy in effect today.

“Nobody wins when states deny children the right to play sports. Sports have the power to unify, but today’s SCOTUS decision will lead to dangerous gender harassment of athletic girls. States banning access to sports are feeding the same regime that is trying to divide and control,” said State Senator Courtney Neron-Misslin.

She continued, “Oregonians must keep our eye on the ball. We must stay focused on addressing actual problems, protecting rights, addressing affordability, and investing in education. Today’s decision erodes LGBTQ+ rights and the rights of women across our country. Here in Oregon, we will continue to stand up to injustices and defend our most vulnerable from Trump-style attacks.”

States can ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a June 30 ruling celebrated by Oregon’s Republican candidate for governor and criticized by Democrats.

The decision is another setback for the LGBTQ+ community from the high court, which has issued a series of recent rulings against transgender Americans.

The court said West Virginia’s and Idaho’s bans on female transgender athletes do not violate either the Constitution or a federal law barring sex discrimination in education.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said schools “may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.”

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” he wrote.

In a partial dissent that was joined by her two liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have given the student challenging West Virginia’s law a chance to show that the ban should not apply to her.

“In opting otherwise, the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports,” she wrote. “Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent.”

Twenty-seven states have passed similar bans, saying they are trying to ensure fairness and address safety concerns for non-transgender women. Similar proposals have not been successful in Oregon.

The transgender students who challenged the laws said hormone therapy and other medical treatments they’ve taken have blocked any physiological advantages from being born male. The laws, they said, should not apply to them for that reason.

The students were also banking on a landmark 2020 Supreme Court decision protecting transgender employees from workplace discrimination.

But since that unexpected 6-3 decision by a conservative court, the justices have often ruled against transgender Americans. That includes their 2025 decision that states can ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

Sen. Christine Drazan, Oregon Republican gubernatorial candidate, celebrates ruling

Oregon Republicans have proposed legislation to ban transgender students’ participation in sports.

Sen. Christine Drazan, R-Canby, who will face off against Gov. Tina Kotek in November, raised the issue during an April Republican gubernatorial debate.

“We’ve got to get politics off of our sports fields. No more boys in girls’ sports, no more men in girls’ locker rooms,” Drazan said.

Rep. Ed Diehl, R-Scio, and Chris Dudley, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican Party’s gubernatorial nomination, promoted similar stances while campaigning.

Drazan issued a statement June 30 in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“This ruling is a victory for fairness, common sense and for the progress achieved by generations of women who fought for and earned the right to compete,” Drazan said. “Girls and young women across Oregon are still competing on an unfair and unsafe playing field.”

Drazan said she’s always supported women’s right to compete and as governor would do everything she could to ensure girls can have a chance to compete.

Diehl also thanked the court for the ruling on social media, saying in part, “this ruling upholds Equal Protection and clarifies Title IX does not force male athletes onto girls’ teams.”

OSAA reviewing ruling, Oregon Democrats speak against court decision

Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon

Published 9:00 pm Monday, June 29, 2026

Although Native Americans had lived in what became Northeastern Oregon for millennia, when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, the better part of a century would pass before settlers began to start towns in the region.

Tens of thousands of immigrants rolled through the area, following the Oregon Trail, starting in the 1840s.

Although their destination was the trail’s end at Oregon City, and ultimately a farm in the Willamette Valley, eventually some retraced the ruts to the northeast corner of Oregon, which became the nation’s 33rd state on Feb. 14, 1859, while others halted their wagons in the valley of the Powder or Grande Ronde river, or in the Columbia Basin on the west side of the Blue Mountains.

The first post office in Eastern Oregon actually predates the state. The Umatilla post office was established on Sept. 26, 1851, although it was closer to present-day Echo than to the city of Umatilla. The post office closed just a year later.

The region’s first official jurisdiction was Baker County, which the Oregon Legislature carved out of Wasco County on Sept. 22, 1862.

That was prompted by the region’s first gold rush, which followed Henry Griffin’s discovery of gold in a gulch, a few miles southwest of what would become Baker City, on Oct. 23, 1861.

Just five days after designating Baker County, on Sept. 27, 1862, lawmakers shrunk Wasco County even more by creating Umatilla County.

Two years later, on Oct. 14, 1864 — apparently a busy day in Salem — the legislature added two more counties in Grant and Union.

Grant County was made of parts of Umatilla and Wasco counties, while Union County was originally part of Baker County.

On Oct. 14, 1887 — it’s not clear why Oct. 14 seems to have been 19th century lawmakers’ favorite day to create counties — the legislature designated a chunk of eastern Union County as Wallowa County.

In many cases, such as Umatilla, post offices were started before towns were incorporated.

And most cities in the region were settled years, or even decades, before they were incorporated.

People were living in what became Baker City, for instance, in 1863, but the city was platted in 1865 and incorporated in 1874, eight years after the post office was established.

La Grande was already a town when it was incorporated in 1865.

And two cities — Umatilla and Canyon City — were incorporated even earlier, in 1864.

Incorporation dates for other cities in the region:

Pendleton: 1880

Hermiston: 1907

Heppner: 1887

Boardman: 1921

Milton-Freewater: 1950 (Milton, 1873; Freewater, 1890)

Enterprise: 1889

Elgin: 1891

Echo: 1904

Haines: 1909

Halfway: 1909

Huntington: 1891

Imbler: 1922

Ione: 1903

Irrigon: 1957

Island City: 1904

John Day: 1901

Joseph: 1887

La Grande: 1865

Lexington: 1903

Long Creek: 1891

Mount Vernon: 1948

North Powder: 1903

Pilot Rock: 1911

Prairie City: 1891

Richland: 1917

Stanfield: 1910

Sumpter: 1901

Summerville: 1885

Union: 1878

Unity: 1972

Wallowa: 1899

Weston: 1878

Athena: 1904