This is 1 of 2 articles on the 2 cases heard today. Justices clash over whether a “perfect fit” is required for sex-based laws and whether the plaintiff’s impending graduation kills the case.
TLDR
On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Little v. Hecox, a pivotal case challenging Idaho’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.” The law bars transgender women from participating in women’s student athletics. The arguments centered less on the cultural debate and more on two technical legal questions: whether the case is moot because the plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, has stopped playing sports, and whether a valid sex-based law can be challenged “as applied” to a specific subclass of people. Idaho argued that sex classifications in sports are constitutional because they address average biological differences, and requiring exceptions for individual transgender athletes would impose an unworkable “strict scrutiny” standard. The liberal justices questioned why an individual with no biological advantage should be banned. The Court’s decision could either uphold the ban, mandate exceptions, or dismiss the case entirely on procedural grounds.
Case Info
Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho, et al. v. Lindsay Hecox, et al., No. 24-38
Continue Reading
This article was originally published on Substack. Subscribe to get updates directly to your inbox.