Little v. Hecox is about whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020, which prevents biological men from competing in women’s sports in all public schools, elementary through college, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Case Status
- Argued – pending decision
- Argued date: January 13, 2026
ERLC Brief
Amicus brief joined by the ERLC (filed for both Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.)
What is this case about?
Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020 to prevent biological men from competing in women’s sports in all public schools, elementary through college. In response to the law, “Lindsay” Hecox, a biological male, filed a lawsuit against the state after wanting to join the women’s cross country team at Boise State University. The case was later joined by another transgender high school student referred to as Jane Doe. Together, they allege that Idaho’s law protecting women’s sports violates their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection.
The district court issued an injunction in 2020 finding that the law likely violates the Constitution. The injunction was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but remanded to the lower court to determine the appropriate scope. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Hecox attempted to have the case declared moot (no longer a live controversy) because he is no longer attempting to compete on the women’s cross country team.
What is the question in the case?
Whether laws that seek to protect women’s and girls’ sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Why does it matter to Southern Baptists?
As the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 lays out, “[God] created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation.” Southern Baptists have time and again opposed biological men competing in women’s sports and affirmed sports should be designated based upon biological sex, most recently at the 2025 annual meeting in Dallas in the resolution “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family.” This not only ensures fairness and safety in sports but also protects sex-specific spaces and honors God’s design for gender.
Post-oral arguments
During oral arguments, attorneys for Hecox argued not to strike down the law, but carve out specific people from the state’s sex-based classification using the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The state’s justification for the law is that it serves the government’s interest in ensuring women’s sports remain safe and fair by preventing biological men who have physiological advantages from competing in women’s sports. However, according to Hecox, if a man has taken hormones and puberty blockers to successfully reduce his testosterone circulation to the levels of a female, then he falls outside of the state’s classification because he has eliminated his biological advantage.
The court’s conservative justices seemed to favor Idaho’s arguments that the law does not classify (the group burdened by the law) on transgender status but on biological sex. While Idaho argued for the lower rational basis review, Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst said that the law would survive under rational basis or intermediate review, since the classification must only be rationally or substantially related to a government interest and does not need to be “a perfect fit.” Under these reviews, Idaho’s law must be allowed to remain fully in effect without carve outs for a small subset of men who have female levels of testosterone circulation.
