Transgender Girls Drop New Hampshire Lawsuit After Supreme Court Ruling

Two transgender teenage girls have voluntarily withdrawn their federal lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s ban on transgender athletes in girls’ school sports, ending a case that had become a prominent legal battleground over transgender rights in athletics. The dismissal, filed July 8, followed a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upheld similar state bans — and came after personal hardships that saw one plaintiff move out of state and the other quit her soccer team.

The Case That Challenged HB 1205

The lawsuit, filed in August 2024, targeted New Hampshire’s HB 1205, a law signed by then-Gov. Chris Sununu that bars transgender girls in grades 5 through 12 from participating in girls’ school sports. The plaintiffs — Parker Tirrell, then 15, and Iris Turmelle — argued the law violated constitutional equal protection guarantees and Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination in education.

In September 2024, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law against the two teens, ruling that HB 1205 “on its face, discriminates against transgender girls” and that the question “is not even a close call,” as AP News reported. The order allowed Tirrell to continue playing on her high school’s girls’ soccer team and gave Turmelle the opportunity to try out for tennis and track.

The Supreme Court’s June 30 Ruling

The legal landscape shifted dramatically on June 30, 2026, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls and women from school athletic teams. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh declared that “states may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females” and that “the Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” according to AP News.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing from the bench that “we just simply do not know scientifically that transgender students pose dangers.”

A Distinct Legal Argument — But a Daunting Road Ahead

Crucially, GLAD Law, which represented the New Hampshire plaintiffs alongside the ACLU of New Hampshire, had argued that the state’s case rested on a distinct legal theory. In a preliminary ruling, the federal judge had found that the New Hampshire legislature intentionally discriminated against transgender people when crafting HB 1205 — a factual finding the Supreme Court did not address in the Idaho and West Virginia cases.

“In our case, the judge found that the Legislature intentionally discriminated against transgender people and that factual record is different from what the Supreme Court was addressing,” Chris Erchull, senior attorney at GLAD Law, told NHPR on June 30. “And, so that gives us a different way to continue arguing that the law is unconstitutional.”

Despite this legal avenue, the plaintiffs ultimately chose to dismiss the case, a decision shaped as much by personal realities as by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Human Cost: Relocation and a Sport No Longer Fun

The stories of the two teens illustrate the profound personal toll of the legal battle.

Iris Turmelle and her family moved out of New Hampshire in summer 2025 following the passage of additional anti-transgender legislation, including a law signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte that prohibits puberty blockers and hormone therapy for new transgender patients under 18. “Though there may be a carve-out for people already receiving gender-affirming care, that is way too close a call for us to risk staying,” Turmelle’s mother, Amy Manzetti, wrote at the time.

Parker Tirrell, now 17, began her junior year last fall on the girls’ junior varsity soccer team. But a few weeks into the season, she quit. “With all of the political stuff going on, soccer wasn’t just about the game anymore,” her mother, Sara Tirrell, told AP News. Parker’s father, Zach, described the atmosphere at games as “palpable tension,” with police officers present at home games where there had been none before.

The tension was fueled in part by an incident in September 2024, when two fathers from an opposing team wore pink “XX” wristbands as a silent protest against transgender athlete participation. They were banned from school grounds and later sued the district.

“Parker didn’t talk about it a lot, but I think she could see that stress for everybody — for her, for her teammates, for her coaches,” Sara Tirrell said. “She felt kind of bad about pulling them all into that circus again. And so she ultimately said, ‘This isn’t fun anymore and I don’t want to do it.’”

What This Means Going Forward

The dismissal of the New Hampshire lawsuit marks the end of one of the most closely watched legal challenges to transgender athlete restrictions. With the Supreme Court having effectively closed the door on constitutional and Title IX challenges, the path forward for opponents of such bans has narrowed considerably.

GLAD Law has signaled that the intentional discrimination argument remains a viable legal theory, but the voluntary dismissal suggests the plaintiffs — who have already endured years of litigation and personal upheaval — are unlikely to continue the fight in this venue. Meanwhile, more than two dozen Republican-led states have adopted similar bans, and the Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to bolster enforcement efforts nationwide.

For Parker Tirrell, the immediate future involves recreation league soccer and, her parents hope, a return to the sport she loves. “She plans to be around and use her voice to continue standing up to discrimination,” her mother said. “In some ways she’s had to grow up a lot faster than some of her peers.”

The case leaves open significant questions: Will the intentional discrimination argument be tested in another case or venue? How will states that permit transgender athlete participation — including Connecticut and California — respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling? And what will be the long-term impact on transgender youth participation in school sports?

For now, the story of two teenage girls who simply wanted to play sports with their peers has become a chapter in a much larger national debate — one that shows no signs of resolution.