Little v. Hecox
Issues
Do laws that limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to biological females violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether laws that limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to biological females violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Petitioner Bradley Little, the Governor of Idaho, argues that the prohibition on males participating in women’s sports does not violate equal protection because it is substantially related to the important state interest of promoting women’s equality in athletics. Respondent Lindsay Hecox counters that the prohibition violates equal protection by discriminating against a quasi-suspect classification of transgender people. Moreover, Hecox argues the prohibition is not substantially related to the government’s interest in fair athletic competitions. The outcome of this case will have significant ramifications for participation in women’s sports and the ongoing interpretation of gender discrimination law.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
In March 2020, Idaho categorically banned transgender women’s and girls’ participation in women’s student athletics with the enactment of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (“FWSA”). Hecox v.
Additional Resources
- Karen M. Lent, Anthony J. Dreyer, and Shay Dvoretzky, The transgender athlete debate: navigating state bans, equal protection claims and executive orders, Reuters (Aug. 12, 2025).
- Kevin Richert, Supreme Court will rule on Idaho’s transgender athletics ban, Idaho Education News (July 3, 2025).
- The National News Desk, Judge blocks request to withdraw lawsuit over Idaho’s transgender athlete law, Fox 45 News (Oct. 15, 2025).