No. 24-38October Term 2025Decided Jun 30, 2026Updated Sep 5, 2026Also known as “the Idaho transgender athletes case”
Transgender athletes in girls' sports
Little v. Hecox
Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho, et al., Petitioners v. Lindsay Hecox, et al.
Idaho and West Virginia won: their laws limiting female school sports teams to biological females may remain in effect.
Case status
1. Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX. 2. West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females. No. 24–43, 98 F. 4th 542, and No. 24–38, 104 F. 4th 1061, reversed and remanded.
Decided 6-3 · June 30, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
Read the opinion (PDF)- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Jun 30, 2026
- What it's about
The Court ruled 6–3 that Idaho may limit women’s and girls’ school sports teams to biological females. The Court held that this policy is permitted by Title IX and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, reversing the Ninth Circuit.
Question presented
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?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released Jun 30, 2026
- Area
Civil Rights
Decision
What the Court decided
1. Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX. 2. West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females. No. 24–43, 98 F. 4th 542, and No. 24–38, 104 F. 4th 1061, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
Impact
Public-school and college athletes in Idaho are affected, especially transgender girls and women seeking female-team spots. Idaho may determine female-team eligibility solely by biological sex. For example, a transgender girl seeking a public-school girls’ team may be excluded under Idaho’s law. The ruling also says West Virginia and Idaho may maintain female teams for biological females. Other states may look to this decision when setting eligibility rules, because the Court found such laws constitutional.
Not official Court text.
Vote
- Vote split
- 6-3
- Majority author
- Brett M. Kavanaugh
Majority
- Brett M. Kavanaugh(author)
- John G. Roberts, Jr.
- Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
- Amy Coney Barrett
- Clarence Thomas(concurring, author)
- Neil Gorsuch(concurring, author)
Dissenting
- Sonia Sotomayor(author)
- Elena Kagan
- Ketanji Brown Jackson(author)
Opinion documents
Briefing
What it's about
The Court ruled 6-3 that Idaho and West Virginia may reserve women’s and girls’ school sports teams for biological females. It said the policies are allowed by Title IX and do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Vote
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the 6–3 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Barrett; Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote the 6-3 opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch concurred separately. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson; Justice Jackson also wrote separately.
“Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex”
“B. P. J. is a transgender girl who wants to live her life consistent with her gender identity.”
Impact
States and schools may maintain female sports teams limited to biological females under these laws. For example, a school may apply that eligibility rule to girls’ middle school, high school, or college teams.
What's next
The cases return to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. Schools, state agencies, and affected athletes must apply the decision to eligibility rules for female sports teams.
What did the Supreme Court rule in Little v. Hecox?
The Court said Idaho may limit women’s and girls’ school sports teams to biological females. It reversed the Ninth Circuit.
Who won Little v. Hecox?
Idaho and West Virginia won. The Court ruled their female-sports eligibility policies are permitted by Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment.
What does Little v. Hecox mean for school athletes?
Schools may maintain female teams for biological females under the laws at issue. The decision affects eligibility rules in women’s and girls’ school sports.
Is Title IX still the law after Little v. Hecox?
Yes. The Court said Title IX allows separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex.
What happens next in Little v. Hecox?
The cases return to the lower courts. Schools and state agencies must apply the Supreme Court’s decision when administering female sports-team eligibility rules.
Timing
Decided June 30, 2026
The Court released its decision 168 days after oral argument on January 13, 2026. The median for cases argued in January is 127 days.
Documents
Opinions
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Audio
Key filings
Briefs on file: 94View on supremecourt.gov
Activity
Docket activity8
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Sep 5, 2026 | Generated
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Sep 5, 2026 | Generated
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Sep 3, 2026 | Generated
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Sep 3, 2026 | Generated
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - BK
Jun 30, 2026 | Court records
Brief added: Questions Presented
Mar 8, 2026 | Court records
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Little
Jan 13, 2026 | Court records
Brief added: Petition
Jul 11, 2024 | Court records
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 5, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials11
Supreme Court docket 24-38
docket | Sep 5, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Sep 5, 2026
Opinion of the Court (Brett M. Kavanaugh)
opinion | Jun 30, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | Mar 8, 2026
Oral argument
audio | Jan 13, 2026
Petition
brief | Jul 11, 2024
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 5, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 5, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 5, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Sep 5, 2026
Slip opinion
official | Sep 5, 2026