The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Idaho’s women’s sports laws in Little v. Hecox, decided alongside West Virginia v. B.P.J., holding that state laws that reserve women’s and girls’ school sports for biological females do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020, limiting female sports teams to biological females. Hecox, a male on Boise State’s women’s soccer team, challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming that the law unlawfully discriminated based on sex and transgender identity. The district court and the Ninth Circuit sided with Hecox, and the Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court upheld Idaho’s law against a constitutional challenge. It held that the law did not discriminate based on transgender identity. And it found that its sex classification was appropriate based on general differences between males and females in athletic competition.
While the Court’s landmark decision settles the long-disputed question of whether these laws are constitutional, it also raises another issue: whether other state laws, such as those of California and Colorado, that require women’s teams to allow men based on gender identity violate the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on sex.
First & Fourteenth attorney Lincoln Davis Wilson represented the state of Idaho in the Supreme Court, working alongside Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador and Alliance Defending Freedom.
Read Opinion Here: West Virginia v. B. P. J.