Little v. Hecox

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Jul 2025

Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life-including sports. Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors-on the field and on the winners' podium. The Idaho Legislature addressed that injustice by enacting the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify. The Act-one of 25 such state laws around the country-is consistent with longstanding government policies preserving women's and girls' sports due to the "average real differences" between the sexes. Clark ex rel. Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1982). Breaking with this Court's precedents, its own caselaw, other circuit decisions, and biological reality, the Ninth Circuit panel here upheld an injunction against the Act because it prevents "transgender women and girls"-meaning males who identify as women and girls-from competing in "women's student athletics." App.4a-5a. The question presented is: 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.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that Title IX permits schools to keep separate girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex, and that West Virginia’s law limiting girls’ teams to biological females fits that rule. The Court said the ordinary meaning of sex in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the regulations was biological sex, and that separate teams are reasonable because of physical differences and the need for safety and competitive fairness. The Court also rejected arguments that the law failed because it excluded some transgender girls from all teams or because Title VII and Bostock should control. On the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that the States’ laws are sex-based but survive intermediate scrutiny because they are substantially related to important interests in safety and fairness. It said the Constitution does not require individualized exemptions or athlete-by-athlete comparisons, and that the laws classify by biological sex, not transgender status.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. She argued that the Court should not have resolved the equal protection question without first allowing the lower courts to make factual findings about the scientific record. In her view, the majority gave too much deference to legislative judgments about transgender athletes and competitive fairness, and it relied on materials and developments not properly established in the record. She said the dispute over whether transgender girls retain athletic advantages after hormone treatment could matter to the constitutional analysis, and that the Court should have been cautious about deciding that issue in the first instance. Justice Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.