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
- Decided – win for women’s sports
- 6-3 ruling
- Decision date: June 30, 2026
- Argued date: Jan. 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.
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?
Not only is this a matter of constitutional interpretation, but of biblical and moral clarity. 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 consistently opposed biological men competing in women’s sports and affirmed sports should be designated based upon biological sex. The most recent instance of this affirmation was at the 2025 annual meeting in Dallas with 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.
Supreme Court ruling
On the question of equal protection, the Court split 6-3 in the decision along ideological lines. In Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, the Court held that states’ interests in ensuring safety and fairness in women’s sports are legitimate purposes. In limiting women’s sports to women only, the state’s classification is substantially related to its interest in fairness and safety, surviving the equal protection challenge.
Both plaintiffs, B.P.J. and Hecox, argued that the laws violated equal protection because they have successfully mitigated their biological advantages through puberty blockers and hormones. They believed they should be exempted from the sex-based classification since they fall outside the state’s reasoning of fairness and safety. However, as Kavanaugh explained, “In the distinctive sports context… the States may treat all biological males the same and treat all biological females the same, given the inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females” (Pg. 20).
Want to learn more about this case?
Read the ERLC Explainer: Supreme Court protects women and girls in women’s sports cases.
