The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to uphold state laws protecting women's sports from trans athletes sent shockwaves across the nation on Tuesday.The attorneys who fought on both sides of the case have now spoken out in response.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that represented trans athletes in West Virginia and Idaho, expressed "heartbreak" over the ruling."This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers." ACLU senior counsel Joshua Block said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. "The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed."CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMLambda Legal, a firm that also provided counsel to the trans athletes, also condemned the ruling, vowing to fight back."This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers," Lambda Legal senior attorney Sasha Burchert added."Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve."Meanwhile, the attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the attorneys general from Idaho and West Virginia praised and celebrated the court's ruling, while expressing disagreement with the three liberal justices who dissented and the attorneys who represent the trans athletes.Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for ADF, told Fox News Digital in a post-ruling interview that the decision was a long-awaited correction after years of female athletes being forced to compete against biological males."When we reject truth, the harm is real, widespread and devastating," Campbell said in the interview. "Across the country, girls have been losing medals, roster spots, titles, opportunities and privacy."SUPREME COURT MAKES RULING ON TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN'S SPORTS"But this decision changes all that," Campbell added in the interview. "It makes clear that states are free to protect women and girls and ensure that their sports remain for them."Campbell struck a similar tone during a press conference with the attorneys general, calling the ruling "a resounding victory for every girl told to sit down, stay quiet and get comfortable with males taking their roster spots, medals, records and scholarships.""The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms that states may enact common-sense laws protecting fairness, safety and equal opportunities for women and girls," Campbell said during the press conference.Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador told Fox News Digital in a separate interview that the case was personal to him even before he became attorney general, citing his daughter’s experience playing high school volleyball."This is one of the reasons I ran for attorney general," Labrador said in the interview, "because I thought our state deserved an attorney general that would defend the laws of the state and would defend common sense."Labrador also said he had thought about what would have happened to his daughter’s own athletic opportunities "if there would have been several male athletes ahead of her."IDAHO AG SAYS SUPREME COURT TRANSGENDER SPORTS CASE DEFIES 'COMMON SENSE'During the press conference, Labrador said Idaho "led the nation" by becoming the first state to pass a law protecting women’s sports and "never wavered" in defending it."Today’s decision is a victory for common sense, fairness and the countless girls and women who dedicate themselves to athletics," Labrador said during the press conference. "The Supreme Court has now confirmed that states can preserve fair competition and protect the opportunities that generations of women fought to secure."West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Fox News Digital in an interview that the hardest part of the litigation was hearing from girls and families in his state while the law was blocked."There was this, what I knew to be an injustice happening in real time, and my hands were really tied by the rule of law and the decision by the Fourth Circuit," McCuskey said in the interview. "Listening to these girls and talking to these girls and believing in these girls, but having to wait… was very, very difficult."That, McCuskey said, made the ruling "vindicating," because "I know they won’t have to go through that again."During the press conference, McCuskey credited the legal teams and the female athletes who joined the fight.WOMEN INVOLVED IN SUPREME COURT CASES OVER TRANS ATHLETES OPEN UP ON FIGHTING HISTORIC LEGAL BATTLE"Without the bravery of those young women, I don’t think we’re standing here today," McCuskey said during the press conference. "This is a victory that has many, many fathers. And there is no more important group of people than these young women who courageously stood up."The ruling came in two consolidated cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. The court held that Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by limiting girls’ and women’s sports to biological females.Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s liberal bloc — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented on the Equal Protection issue, while agreeing in part that the Title IX claim failed in a seemingly unanimous 9-0 agreement.The Supreme Court’s opinion noted that 27 states have enacted laws maintaining women’s and girls’ sports for biological females, and that the cases before the court concerned West Virginia’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.ADF represented female athletes who intervened in the cases, including Idaho State athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall in the Idaho case and former West Virginia State soccer player Lainey Armistead in the West Virginia case, according to ADF case materials.The ACLU had argued that West Virginia’s law violated the Constitution and Title IX as applied to B.P.J., a transgender student who sought to compete in cross-country and track and field.Campbell told Fox News Digital in the interview that he believed the dissenters were wrong on the constitutional question, but he emphasized that the Title IX portion of the decision was a major defeat for the challengers."The justices that dissented only did so on the constitutional question," Campbell said in the interview. "It’s really important to recognize that every single justice on the Supreme Court recognized that Title IX allows states to protect women’s sports.""On the equal protection issue, the majority of the court said that the 14th Amendment allows states to protect women’s sports, and the dissenting justices had a different view," Campbell added.McCuskey, responding in the interview to the statements from the ACLU and Lambda Legal, said he expected the groups to "respect the process and the rule of law" the same way conservatives did in cases they lost."Nine of nine justices decided that these laws did not violate Title IX, and six of nine justices decided that this law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause," McCuskey said in the interview. "Sometimes in this world you lose, and in this instance they did, and the real winners here are the young women and girls who are going to be provided a safe and fair place to play going forward."Labrador, when asked in the interview about the response from the other side, said he felt sympathy for children dealing with gender identity issues, but said the case was ultimately about biological girls."The reality is that biological girls were protected today, and that’s what this case was about," Labrador said in the interview. "That’s what Title IX is about. That’s what the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is about, and I think it was the right decision."The majority opinion leaned heavily on fairness and safety, saying sports are "generally zero sum" and that every roster spot, medal, starting position and scholarship can come at the expense of another athlete. The court concluded that states may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ teams based on biological sex, and that the Constitution does not require schools to make case-by-case exceptions for certain biological males who identify as female.Sotomayor, writing for the liberal justices, accused the majority of cutting the litigation short and argued that unresolved factual questions should have been returned to the lower courts. She wrote that the majority "inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions."Campbell said in the interview that the ruling should now put pressure on the remaining states that have not passed similar laws."So at this point, what’s important to consider from a national perspective is that 27 states have protected women’s sports, but 23 states haven’t," Campbell said. "This decision is a wake-up call for those other 23 states to also protect women and girls on the playing field."During the press conference, McCuskey also called on Congress to act.'SAVE WOMEN'S SPORTS' 2025 CULTURE WAR TIMELINE — THE YEAR THE TIDES TURNED"We are very, very hopeful that Congress specifically will step up, read this decision and say it’s time for a national policy on this issue," McCuskey said. "This is common sense. Nine justices agree with it on Title IX and six justices agree with this on equal protection."Campbell told Fox News Digital in the interview that ADF is already looking beyond Idaho and West Virginia."We’re considering all options," Campbell said. "We’re certainly evaluating whenever we see injustice on the playing field, and if there are opportunities to bring lawsuits in other venues, we will strongly consider that."The ruling also raised immediate questions about whether the court’s reasoning could affect future cases involving locker rooms, bathrooms and other sex-separated spaces.Labrador said during the press conference that "there’s a lot of language in this decision" that could apply to locker rooms and bathrooms, while McCuskey said the opinion would "instruct" future cases involving whether women should have sex-specific spaces to change, sleep and get dressed.For supporters of the ruling, Tuesday’s decision was a sweeping victory for the women’s sports movement. For opponents, it was a setback that could fuel the next wave of litigation.Neither side sounded ready to stand down.