Hecox v. Little

On July 11, 2024, Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student at Boise State University, and Jane Doe, a senior at Boise High School, filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho House Bill 500. The law prohibited transgender women and girls from participating in female sports. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against transgender individuals. The complaint stated that the law “targets student athletes who are transgender and many who are intersex and harms all women and girls in Idaho” and subjects female athletes to the possibility of “invasive genital and genetic screenings.” Hecox stated, “I just want to run with other girls on the team. I run for myself, but part of what I enjoy about the sport is building the relationships with a team. I’m a girl, and the right team for me is the girls’ team.”

On August 17, 2024, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of HB 500, allowing Hecox and other transgender students to participate in school sports while the case continued. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their constitutional claims, including violations of equal protection and due process, noting that the law imposed “categorical exclusions based on transgender status without individualized assessment.”

Idaho state officials filed an appeal of the injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction, maintaining that the law could not take effect while litigation was pending. The case then returned to the district court for further proceedings before moving back up to the Ninth Circuit as the state continued its appeals. During this process, civil rights, women’s rights, and medical organizations filed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs, including over 60 women’s and civil rights groups, more than 175 female athletes, multiple former Idaho Attorneys General, corporations such as Nike and Ben & Jerry’s, and medical associations like the American Medical Association. The briefs argued that HB 500 “inflicts substantial harm on transgender students and their ability to participate in sports.”

On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear arguments regarding Idaho’s ban, consolidating it with similar cases including West Virginia v. B.P.J. Coverage noted that the Court would address whether states can bar transgender students from participating in sports consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. In the lead-up to oral arguments, Idaho officials defended the law as necessary to protect women’s sports, while plaintiffs emphasized that the law “violates constitutional rights and entrenches stigma and discrimination against transgender youth.”

The case occurred alongside other significant federal education and civil rights litigation, including Board of Trustees of the California State University v. United States Department of Education, in which California State University challenged federal Title IX funding threats over policies regarding transgender students. Legal filings, including corporate amici briefs and the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Hecox, outlined arguments that HB 500 discriminated against transgender students solely based on gender identity and that the law’s categorical ban exceeded any permissible state interest. As of early 2026, the case remained before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled, reviewing state-level restrictions on transgender athletes.