A federal judge has decided that the lawsuit challenging Idaho’s ban on transgender women participating in female sports will remain open, refusing requests to dismiss it as moot. The ruling ensures that the case, centered on Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, will continue even as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on similar cases.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit, titled Hecox v. Little, was first filed in 2020 by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student who sought to join the Boise State University women’s cross-country team. She argued that Idaho’s law, passed under HB 500, violates the Equal Protection Clause and discriminates based on sex and gender identity.
Earlier this year, Hecox requested that the lawsuit be dismissed, citing personal reasons and her decision to step away from collegiate competition. However, U.S. District Judge David Nye rejected that motion, calling it “somewhat manipulative” since the Supreme Court had already agreed to review the issue at a national level. Nye added that dismissing the case now would “undermine judicial fairness” and prevent the courts from resolving key legal questions surrounding gender and sports participation.
State and Legal Responses
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador pushed for the case to remain active, emphasizing the state’s commitment to protecting women’s sports. Backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, his office argued that the law is necessary to ensure fair athletic competition and to preserve biological distinctions in sports categories.
In July 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from both Idaho and West Virginia concerning state laws that restrict transgender athletes from competing in female sports. The Court’s decision is expected to set a nationwide precedent. Judge Nye clarified that until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, the Idaho lawsuit will continue in federal district court.
What Happens Next
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are anticipated to begin in early 2026. In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ earlier injunction blocking Idaho’s law remains in place. That ruling deemed the law discriminatory, particularly due to its requirement for invasive sex-verification procedures for athletes suspected of being transgender.
The upcoming Supreme Court case is expected to clarify how Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, and state powers intersect regarding participation in school and collegiate sports based on gender identity.
Reactions and Broader Impact
The ACLU, representing Lindsay Hecox, praised the judge’s decision to keep the case alive, saying it ensures continued protection for transgender individuals seeking equal participation in athletics. “This ruling affirms that transgender students deserve the same opportunities as others and that their rights cannot be quietly erased,” an ACLU spokesperson said.
Supporters of the Idaho law, however, applauded the judge’s refusal to dismiss the case, viewing it as an opportunity to solidify protections for female athletes. “This is about fairness, not exclusion,” stated one advocate, emphasizing that the biological differences between men and women must remain a core principle in athletic competition.
As legal challenges surrounding transgender participation in sports continue nationwide, Idaho’s case is expected to play a central role in shaping future federal and state-level legislation on gender and athletics.
