Case: Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho, et al. v. Lindsay Hecox, et al., No. 24-38
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-15
Status: Granted
Question Presented: 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 Fourteenth Amendment.
On January 13, 2026, the Court heard oral argument in Little v. Hecox, with Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst arguing for the petitioners and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan sharing argument time on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae. The federal government’s participation, authorized by a November 24 order granting divided argument, signals the administration’s alignment with Idaho’s position. The full docket is available at the Supreme Court’s docket page.
The case arises from Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which limits athletic competition in public schools and colleges to participants whose biological sex is female. Lindsay Hecox challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause. The Ninth Circuit ruled against Idaho, and Idaho sought certiorari. The Court granted review in 2024. More background is available via Oyez.
The central legal question is whether such sex-based eligibility rules violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 26 amicus briefs filed reflect the range of competing empirical and normative claims at stake, including a brief from sports science professors addressing physiological differences and one from the National Women’s Law Center opposing the restriction.
The decision will directly affect similar statutes enacted in numerous other states. Observers should watch whether the Court issues a narrow ruling tied to athletic contexts or articulates broader equal protection principles governing such classifications across other domains.