Little v. Hecox


Little v. Hecox is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of state laws that ban transgender women and girls from participating on female athletic teams. The case challenges Idaho's 2020 Fairness in Women's Sports Act, the first law of its kind in the United States, which defines sex based on reproductive biology and genetics rather than gender identity.
The Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026. The case is significant as it tests the application of the Court's 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County—which held that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination includes gender identity—to the context of competitive sports and Title IX. Relevant laws applied in lower court rulings include the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

Background

Legislative history

In March 2020, the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 500, titled the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act". Signed by Governor Brad Little on March 30, 2020, it made Idaho the first state to impose a categorical ban on transgender athletes in women's sports. Prior to the law's passage, the Idaho High School Activities Association and the National Collegiate Athletic Association allowed transgender women to compete if they had undergone hormone therapy to suppress testosterone for one year.
The Act requires that interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams be designated as one of three categories:
  1. Males, men, or boys
  2. Females, women, or girls
  3. Coed or mixed
Teams designated for females "shall not be open to students of the male sex." The law establishes a dispute mechanism where, if a student's sex is challenged, they must provide a signed physician's statement verifying their sex based "solely" on:
  • The student's internal and external reproductive anatomy;
  • The student's normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone; and
  • An analysis of the student's genetic makeup.

Plaintiffs

The suit was filed by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and student at Boise State University, and "Jane Doe," a cisgender high school athlete who feared being subjected to the law's sex verification procedures. Hecox had been undergoing hormone therapy to lower her testosterone levels and sought to try out for the university's women's track and cross-country teams.

Procedural history

District Court

In August 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the law. Chief District Judge David Nye ruled that the Act likely violated the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated on the basis of sex and transgender status without a sufficient justification. The court noted that the state failed to provide evidence that transgender women who suppress their testosterone maintain a significant athletic advantage over cisgender women, rendering the law's categorical ban unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny.

Ninth Circuit

Idaho appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2023, a three-judge panel affirmed the preliminary injunction. The panel held that the law was subject to heightened scrutiny because it discriminated based on sex and transgender status. The court found that the "sweeping prohibition" was not substantially related to the state's interest in promoting athletic equity for cisgender women, particularly given the existing NCAA policies that Hecox followed.
Following the Supreme Court's shadow docket decision to issue an emergency stay in Labrador v. Poe, which involved similar issues of state authority and gender transition, the Ninth Circuit briefly remanded the case for reconsideration but ultimately maintained the injunction.

Supreme Court

On July 3, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, consolidating it with West Virginia v. B. P. J., a similar case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Mootness issue

Prior to oral arguments, Hecox attempted to voluntarily dismiss her claims, stating she had withdrawn from the university track team and did not intend to compete in the future. Idaho opposed the dismissal, arguing that the legal question remained "live" and required resolution to prevent future litigation under the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine. The Supreme Court deferred the question of mootness to the hearing on the merits.

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were held on January 13, 2026.For Idaho: Solicitor General Alan Hurst argued that the law's classification is based on biological sex, not transgender status, and is necessary because "sex is what matters in sports" due to physiological advantages such as bone density and lung capacity. He contended that Title IX was originally written to protect biological females.For Hecox: Attorney Kathleen Hartnett argued that the law fails intermediate scrutiny because it is overbroad, excluding transgender women who have medically mitigated any biological advantages through testosterone suppression. She contended that the law enforces sex stereotypes and subjects all female athletes to invasive medical scrutiny.
During questioning, Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern over whether overturning the ban would "constitutionalize" a right for transgender athletes despite ongoing scientific debate. Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed skepticism that the bans violated Title IX, suggesting that the 1972 statute was written with a strict biological definition of sex in mind.