COLUMBIA, Mo. (Kmiz)

Missouri leaders are getting ready to discuss further restrictions on transgender athletes following Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The higher court upheld the power of the states to ban transgender athletes from participating in certain sports, ruling that these restrictions do not interfere with Title IX regulations.

Missouri state Rep. Brian Seitz (R-Branson) is in support of the Supreme Court ruling, saying "it is the biggest win for women's sports since Title IX." Seitz said the ruling is in line with what Missouri did just a few years prior.

"I'm just glad that the Supreme Court saw fit, what, to rule on what we saw in Missouri as a no brainer three or four years ago," Seitz said.

The decision saw support online from a number of GOP members in the state, including Gov. Mike Kehoe, State Sen. Rock Brattin (R-Cass County) and US Rep. Bob Onder.  

Under current state law 163.048, Missouri's public, private, charter and higher education institutions are permitted to only let student athletes compete in designated sports that align with their biological sex as listed on their birth certificate.

The only exception stated to this law is when a female student participates in an athletic competition designated for male's students if the school does not have a corresponding female sport offered.

This law was enacted in 2023, and the Missouri Senate placed a sunset clause to give officials more time to research. This law is set to end on Aug. 28, 2027.

With the sunset clause ending in a year, Seitz is looking to make this law permanent and said the ruling from the higher courts has caused a "greater sense of urgency."

However, a local LGBTQ+ community center The Center Project is not in support of the Supreme Court's ruling.

"I am incredibly disappointed to see the Supreme Court uphold what I would consider to be a discriminatory ruling," said Vera Elwood, who is the Youth Project Coordinator at The Center Project and the Ward 2 City Councilwoman.

Elwood said this law is seen more than just a restriction on sports teams, it is affecting the lives of those who are already at high risk.

"I think for some people they can look at it and think, 'well, it's just a soccer team,'" Elwood said. "But when you're being singled out in this kind of way, we might, you know, we might lose kids."

Elwood said the stakes for transgender youth is higher due to them being more at risk for mental health illnesses. She hopes that the state representatives can prioritize the well-being of students.

"I hope that we as a state and as a community can find ways to protect our most at risk our most at need youth," Elwood said.

As state leaders prepare to revisit the law, a discussion over whether a middle ground even exists starts to be seen.

Seitz claims participating in co-ed sports is an appropriate alternative, but "as far as women's sport, I think biological sex has to be protected, it's a matter of fairness."

And for Elwood, there is no compromise on an issue that she says goes beyond just sports.

"I also don't see a middle ground on inclusion in sports, inclusion in school activities," Elwood said. "You either get to be on the team, or you don't."