Little v. Hecox (consolidated with West Virginia v. B. P. J.) is a United States Supreme Court case holding that schools can determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports teams based on biological sex. The case upheld state laws banning or restricting transgender athletes from participating on female athletic teams.
Little v Hecox challenged Idaho's 2020 "Fairness in Women's Sports Act", which explicitly defined sex based on genitalia and chromosomes rather than gender. It was argued alongside West Virginia v. B. P. J. which challenged a similar law in West Virginia.
The Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026. The case was significant as it tested 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.
On June 30, 2026, the Court decided 6–3 that Idaho and West Virginia's laws did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and in doing so, found laws banning trans girls and women from female sports to be constitutional.
Background In March 2020, the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 500, titled the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act". Signed into law by Governor Brad Little on March 30, 2020, it made Idaho the first state to enact a categorical ban on transgender athletes competing in women's sports.
The act prohibits transgender women and girls from kindergarten through college from competing on women's sports teams, including intramural or club teams. If an athlete's sex is disputed, they must provide a signed statement from their personal healthcare provider. The law requires providers to "verify the student's biological sex as part of a routine sports physical examination" by "relying only on one or more of the following: the student's reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels."
Prior to the law's passage, the Idaho High School Activities Association and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) permitted transgender women to compete in women's sports after completing one year of hormone treatment.
In February 2025, the NCAA revised its policy and banned transgender women from competing in women's sports in order to align with Executive Order 14201. By January 2026, over 25 U.S. states enacted laws similar to Idaho's.
Plaintiffs The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm Cooley LLP, and the nonprofit organization Legal Voice on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, a transgender female student at Boise State University, and "Jane Doe," a cisgender female high school student 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 The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in April 2020. 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 (2024), 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. (No. 24-43), 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 birth sex, not transgender status, and is necessary because "sex is what matters in sports" due to alleged physiological advantages such as bone density and lung capacity. He contended that Title IX was originally written to protect cis 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 supposed 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 debate. Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed skepticism that the bans violated Title IX, suggesting that the 1972 statute was written with a strict definition of sex in mind.
Decision
Reception The ruling was praised by the Trump administration, Republican politicians and conservative groups like Independent Women's Law Center and the Family Research Council which called it "a good first step" in their broader goal of getting Obergefell v. Hodges overturned.
The conservative advocacy groups, Alliance Defending Freedom, America First Legal and Defending Education vowed to use the ruling to push for bans on trans athletes in Democrat-controlled states. Alliance Defending Freedom noted that they were already backing several cases making their way through lower courts attempting to not just allow bans on trans athletes, but require it, and also extend the logic in the court's decision to other areas like restroom access.
By contrast, the ruling was condemned by LGBT rights groups, some human rights groups, and several Democrat politicians including GLAD Law, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD.
See also Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) United States v. Virginia (1996) Transgender rights in the United States United States v. Skrmetti
References