UK Supreme Court — For Women Scotland
The UK Supreme Court is the highest court in the United Kingdom. On 16 April 2025, it ruled in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Government (case number UKSC/2024/0042).
What the case was about
The question was whether someone with a full gender recognition certificate recognising them as female is a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The case arose from guidance issued by the Scottish Government. The court unanimously held that the terms woman, man and sex in the Equality Act refer to biological sex. It emphasised that transgender people remain protected against discrimination.
What you can find
The case page contains a summary, the full judgment and recordings of the hearings. The Equality Act applies in England, Wales and Scotland, but not in Northern Ireland. The judgment was welcomed by gender-critical groups and criticised by trans organisations. See legal matters and international developments.
Background
The case began with the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, a Scottish law intended to increase the number of women on the boards of public bodies. In an initial case, the court ruled that the definition of woman in that legislation fell outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government subsequently issued new guidance in which the definition was aligned with the Equality Act and also included people with a gender recognition certificate. For Women Scotland challenged that guidance. The Outer House of the Court of Session dismissed the claim on 13 December 2022, and the Inner House upheld that decision on 1 November 2023. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 26 and 27 November 2024.
The judges and the reasoning
The case was decided by Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler. Lord Hodge delivered the unanimous judgment. The court pointed out that the predecessor to the Act, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, was based on biological sex. According to the court, giving the term sex a shifting meaning would make the Equality Act incoherent or unworkable, including in relation to the provisions concerning pregnancy. Sex Matters and the Equality and Human Rights Commission made oral submissions as interveners; Amnesty International and a group of lesbian organisations submitted written arguments.
Consequences and criticism
Following the judgment, the Equality and Human Rights Commission announced a revised code of practice, which came into force in August 2026. Sports governing bodies such as the Football Association, England Netball and the ECB cricket board amended their rules; see gender and sport. Critics pointed out that the court did not allow transgender lawyers to intervene as third parties. Stonewall and TransActual condemned the judgment.