On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case that will determine whether Idaho’s 2020 law prohibiting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Idaho law, known as the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, bans transgender females from competing on teams designated for women and girls in public schools and colleges. The law’s challengers argue that it unlawfully discriminates based on both sex and transgender status. The case arises from a preliminary injunction issued in 2020, which has allowed Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and Boise State University student, to participate in club-level women’s sports during her college years.
The state of Idaho contends the law protects fairness in athletics by recognizing “average real differences” between sexes and excluding males from female categories, regardless of gender identity. It has cited Ninth Circuit precedent and aims to preserve separate athletic spaces based on biological sex.
However, in its June 2024 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction in favor of Hecox, applying heightened scrutiny due to the law’s discrimination on both sex and transgender status. The panel ruled the law likely fails constitutional review because it categorically excludes transgender girls and women, including those with hormone suppression, without sufficient justification. The court emphasized that the Act did not appear to be substantially related to the state’s goal of ensuring fair competition, particularly in light of Hecox’s consistent failure to qualify for NCAA teams.
In a narrow ruling limited to Hecox, the court said the law imposed unnecessary and broad restrictions—including invasive verification procedures—that risked deterring participation based on identity rather than fostering fairness. The case, pending for over four years, has now reached the country’s highest court as Hecox nears graduation. Though her individual claim may soon be moot, the Court could choose to proceed on the grounds that the case is “capable of repetition yet evading review”—a doctrine applied when issues are likely to recur but escape judicial resolution due to their time-sensitive nature.
This doctrine has long served to keep similar cases from disappearing simply because the plaintiff’s circumstances change. In this instance, the issue of whether transgender students may participate in school athletics is likely to arise again, particularly as more states enact similar laws and litigation unfolds in lower courts. This case provides the justices an opportunity to address a recurring constitutional question with nationwide implications.
The broader legal question is how the Equal Protection Clause applies to laws that classify based on sex and transgender status. Can a state categorically exclude transgender girls from girls’ sports without violating the Constitution? Idaho argues yes, based on biological differences, while the Ninth Circuit found the law overly broad and potentially discriminatory, especially when applied to someone like Hecox who underwent hormone therapy and never qualified for elite teams.
The Ninth Circuit applied heightened scrutiny, which requires the state to show that its classification serves an important objective and is closely related to that goal. It found Idaho’s law lacking in both evidence and tailoring. The Court also emphasized that further fact-finding at trial would be necessary to evaluate any claimed athletic advantage more fully.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit, it could affirm that transgender individuals are protected under the Equal Protection Clause, at least in contexts like school sports. If it rules in Idaho’s favor, it could signal a broader acceptance of laws defining athletic participation strictly by biological sex. Either way, the ruling will likely influence ongoing and future litigation on transgender rights in educational settings.