Hecox v. Little

In 2020, Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibited transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams. The act replaced Idaho’s prior policy, which, in accordance with national and international standards, had allowed transgender athletes to compete on women’s teams after undergoing testosterone-suppressing hormone therapy. The act included a dispute process under which a female athlete could be required to medically verify her biological sex before competing. The act also established a private right of action for violations. Lindsay Hecox, a male-to-female transgender athlete, and Jane Doe, a cisgender minor female athlete, sued Idaho to enjoin enforcement of the act. Hecox, who was undergoing hormone therapy, wanted to join her college’s women’s cross-country team. Doe competed on her high school girls’ soccer team and was concerned that her arguably masculine features and behavior would subject her to the biological-sex dispute process. Hecox and Doe argued that the act violated the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against both transgender and cisgender female athletes without promoting an important government interest. Idaho countered, arguing that the act promoted sex equality and ensured female athletes’ access to athletic opportunities and scholarships. Idaho argued that the act was justified because male athletes had a physiological advantage over female athletes; however, Idaho failed to meaningfully refute testimony from Hecox and Doe’s medical expert that testosterone-suppressing hormone therapy obviated those physiological advantages.