Student Contesting Idaho Ban on Males in Female Sports Withdraws Supreme Court Case

Lower courts had sided with the college student, ruling that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on July 14, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

A male Idaho college student challenging his state’s ban on male athletes competing on school sports teams intended for females asked to withdraw his Supreme Court case on Sept. 2.

Idaho filed a brief the next day indicating it opposes the request.

Previously, on July 3, the Supreme Court granted Idaho’s petition in Little v. Hecox, but had not yet scheduled an oral argument in the case.

On the same day, the high court also granted West Virginia’s petition in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a similar case in which a male student is challenging that state’s ban on males participating in female school sports teams.

The West Virginia case remains active, but no oral argument has yet been scheduled. The hearing is expected to take place in the Supreme Court’s new term that begins in October.

Respondent Lindsay Hecox had sued Idaho, alleging that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause and Title IX, a federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination at any school that receives federal funding.

The state said in its petition that the Idaho Legislature passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act because “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 state law “ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify,” the petition said.

Hecox, a male who identifies as female, wanted to compete as part of the Boise State University (BSU) women’s teams for track and cross-country.

But Hecox’s attorneys said in a new filing with the Supreme Court that the continued controversy over the case has become too much of a distraction for the plaintiff, who wants to focus on schoolwork.

“Ms. Hecox has also come under negative public scrutiny from certain quarters because of this litigation, and she believes that such continued—and likely intensified—attention in the coming school year will distract her from her schoolwork and prevent her from meeting her academic and personal goals.”

Even though playing women’s sports remains important to Hecox, “her top priority is graduating from college and living a healthy and safe life,” the filing said.

Hecox has also decided to “refrain from playing any women’s sports at BSU or in Idaho,” or from trying out for or participating in “any school-sponsored women’s sports” covered by the state law.

A federal district court previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law so Hecox could try out for the teams. The court ruled that the statute discriminates against transgender-identifying athletes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, holding that laws making sex-based distinctions in schools serve as “proxy discrimination” against transgender-identifying athletes.

The brief said that by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal, Hecox terminated the case at the district court level, so there is no longer a live claim left to be decided by the courts.

The Supreme Court should vacate the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and send the case back to that court with instructions to dismiss the appeal, the brief said.

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst said in a Sept. 3 brief that the state opposes the request to terminate the Supreme Court appeal.

Hurst did not explain why the state disagrees with the request.

He asked the court to give the state until Sept. 26 to file an opposing brief. He said he has conferred with the respondent’s counsel, who does not oppose the Sept. 26 filing deadline.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will rule on the request.