Little v. Hecox | Oral Argument Date: 1/13/26 | Docket Link: Here
Consolidated with West Virginia v. B. P. J. | Oral Argument Date: 1/13/26 | Docket Link: Here
Question Presented: Whether laws protecting women's sports by limiting participation to biological females violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Overview: Consolidated cases challenging Idaho's categorical ban and West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act generate Supreme Court's first major ruling on transgender athletics after Skrmetti reshaped constitutional sex discrimination analysis.
Posture: Multiple circuit splits; Little preliminarily enjoined (Ninth Circuit), West Virginia reversed (Fourth Circuit); proceedings stayed pending review.
Main Arguments:
• Petitioners (Idaho/West Virginia): (1) Constitutional "sex" means objective biological reality, not subjective gender identity; (2) Rational basis review applies to definitional challenges about meaning of "female"; (3) Skrmetti forecloses proxy discrimination claims targeting biology-based classifications
United States (as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners): (1) Equal Protection permits sex-separated athletics based on constitutional history; (2) Biology-based classifications address competitive fairness, not discriminatory animus; (3) Skrmetti forecloses proxy discrimination claims
• Respondents (Hecox/B.P.J.): (1) Categorical exclusions constitute traditional sex discrimination triggering heightened scrutiny; (2) Transgender status qualifies as quasi-suspect classification warranting judicial protection; (3) Individual assessment required under VMI rather than blanket exclusions
Implications:
- Petitioners' victory establishes broad state authority over sex-separated activities using biological definitions, potentially affecting employment discrimination, housing rights, and educational access beyond sports.
- Respondent victory extends heightened constitutional protection to transgender individuals, requiring individualized consideration rather than categorical exclusions and potentially invalidating similar laws across twenty-six states.
- Ruling will clarify whether Skrmetti's restrictive constitutional framework applies beyond medical treatment contexts and resolve circuit split on Title IX interpretation.
The Fine Print:
• Fourteenth Amendment § 1: "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
• Idaho Code § 33-6203(3): "Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex"
• W. Va. Code § 18-2-25d(c)(2): Female teams "shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport"
Primary Cases:
• United States v. Skrmetti (2025): Constitutional sex classifications analyze biological differences rather than gender identity; laws addressing medical procedures and age restrictions don't trigger heightened scrutiny based on transgender status
• United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996): Sex-based exclusions require exceedingly persuasive justification under intermediate scrutiny; categorical rules must account for...