In a courtroom showdown that could reshape the landscape of women’s sports, a federal judge has greenlit Idaho’s fight to defend its law restricting transgender athletes from competing in female categories.
Fox News reported that this pivotal ruling by U.S. District Judge David Nye keeps alive a Supreme Court case, Little v. Hecox, centered on Idaho’s state law and the broader debate over fairness and biology in competitive athletics.
The legal saga began in 2020 when Lindsay Hecox, a former Boise State transgender athlete, challenged Idaho’s law that barred trans athletes from women’s sports, successfully securing a block on the statute.
Hecox’s initial lawsuit, joined by an anonymous female student concerned about invasive verification processes, sparked a fierce battle over state authority versus individual rights.
Fast forward to 2023, when a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the injunction against Idaho’s law, keeping the restriction sidelined.
Despite Hecox’s recent decision to withdraw from competing in women’s sports at Boise State or in Idaho, and a subsequent plea to drop the Supreme Court challenge, Judge Nye wasn’t buying the timing of this retreat.
“[Idaho] has a fair right to have its arguments heard and adjudicated once and for all,” Judge Nye declared, signaling that the state deserves its day in the nation’s highest court (U.S. District Judge David Nye).
Let’s unpack that: Nye’s stance suggests a growing frustration with legal maneuvers that seem designed to dodge a definitive ruling on a deeply divisive issue.
He even called Hecox’s mootness argument “somewhat manipulative” to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny, a polite but pointed jab at what he sees as gamesmanship in the courtroom (U.S. District Judge David Nye).
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, alongside Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kristen Waggoner, fiercely opposed Hecox’s dismissal attempt, arguing it violated prior agreements to stay the case.
Labrador’s resolve is clear, as he champions the cause of protecting what he calls “biological reality” in sports, a position echoed by 27 state attorneys general and Guam in supportive briefs.
“From day one in office, defending this law has been a top priority because Idaho’s daughters deserve fair competition based on biological reality,” Labrador stated, framing the fight as a defense of fairness for female athletes (Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador).
While Idaho’s case, Little v. Hecox, presses forward, it’s not the only battle over trans athletes heading to the Supreme Court; West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” from 2021 is also under review.
In that case, a lower court allowed transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson to compete in girls’ cross-country and track, with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals citing equal protection under the Constitution in a 2024 ruling.
Pepper-Jackson’s success on the field—placing third in discus and eighth in shot put at a state meet—adds fuel to the fire, as conservatives argue such outcomes highlight the need for clear, biology-based rules, while progressives see it as proof of inclusion’s merit.
