Case Summary
The League of Women Voters of the United States filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs in Hecox v. Little on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. The case challenges Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which targets transgender, nonbinary, and intersex students with the nation’s harshest requirements for participation in women’s sports.
Hecox v. Little is a challenge to the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits transgender women and girls, intersex persons, and any nonbinary person from participating in sports.
The law has three important parts. First, the law requires that all sports are designated male, female, or coed. Members of the male sex are not allowed to participate in female sports, but there is not a comparable limitation on transgender or cisgender person who wants to participate in male sports. Second, the school or institution is permitted to settle a dispute regarding a student’s sex by requiring that the student obtain a consent form signed by a qualified healthcare provider that verifies the student’s biological sex. This doctor’s verification must be based on a health examination that relies on “the student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or endogenously produced testosterone.” Lastly, the law creates an enforcement mechanism by creating a private right of action for any student negatively impacted by a violation of the Act.
This type of categorical ban on transgender women’s and girls’ and nonbinary and intersex persons’ participation in sports would be the first of its kind on a national scale. While some other states require medical examinations, none are as invasive as the law in Idaho. Even under the current NCAA and Idaho High School Activities Association (“IHSAA”) rules, a transgender girl or woman is permitted to compete in women’s sports following one year of hormone therapy suppressing testosterone for the purposes of gender transition.
On April 25, 2020, plaintiffs Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman attending Boise State University and Jane Doe, a high school student, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court of Idaho challenging the law. The plaintiffs asserted that the ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, as well as the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections.
On August 17, 2020, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the law was unconstitutional on the merits.
The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. LWVUS filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. The amicus brief highlights the history of harm that gender testing has caused.
On June 24, 2021, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the plaintiff Lindsey Hecox still had standing to participate in the case.
LWVUS was represented by the National Women’s Law Center, Hogan Lovells US LLP, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Democracy Forward, and Professor Deborah Brake.
LWV Timeline
Complaint filed in district court
Plaintiffs file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.
District court grants preliminary injunction
The district court grants plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act pending trial on the merits.
Defendants appeal to the circuit court of appeals
The defendants appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
LWVUS files amicus brief supporting plaintiffs
The League of Women Voters of the United States joins an amicus brief led by the National Women’s Law Center and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in support of the plaintiffs.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remands case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remands the case back to the District Court on the limited question of whether Ms. Hecox’s claim is moot in light of her enrollment status at Boise State University.
District court rules case is not moot
The District court rules that the Lindsey Hecox's claim was not moot and the case remains stayed pending the defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction.
Three judge panel affirms preliminary injunction
In a 3-0 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the law. The court rules that the ban on transgender women and girls from women's sports is a sex-based classification requiring heightened scrutiny. Under this standard, because of the state's failure to produce evidence supporting its stated interests of sex equality and protecting opportunities for female athletes, the law failed heightened scrutiny.
Order withdrawing panel opinion
In response to a United States Supreme Court order allowing Idaho's gender-affirming care ban to take effect, the three-judge panel withdraws its opinion affirming the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction.
Panel issues amended opinion
The three-judge panel issues an amended opinion, affirming the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction as to Ms. Hecox only. The panel returns the case to the district court and orders it to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction.
Idaho files petition for writ of certiorari
Idaho appeals to the United States Supreme Court, asking it to take the case and decide whether bans on non-binary persons in women's and girls' sports violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
United States Supreme Court accepts case
The United States Supreme Court grants state defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari.
Plaintiff Hecox asks to voluntarily dismisses the case
Ms. Hecox voluntarily dismisses her case with prejudice.
District court denies motion for voluntary dismissal
The district court denies Ms. Hecox's motion to voluntarily dismiss her case. The ruling states it is limited to this case and states that since the United States Supreme Court has accepted Idaho's appeal, it should be given an opportunity to argue its position there.
United States Supreme Court schedules oral argument
The Court schedules oral argument for January 13, 2026. The argument will take place on the same day as the argument in West Virginia v. BPJ, another case on anti-trans laws in sports.
LWV files amicus brief
LWVUS joins an amicus brief led by advocates for women's and girls' rights, asking the Court to affirm the lower court rulings in Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ striking down the anti-trans athlete provisions at issue. The brief argues upholding the laws would lead to targeting of women and girls based on stereotypes about sex and intrusive "sex-verification" tests.