Skip to main content

No. 24-38October Term 2025Decided Jun 30, 2026Updated Sep 5, 2026Also known as “the Idaho transgender athletes case”

Docket 24-38October Term 2025 (2025–2026)

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
Case AcceptedJul 3, 2025
Arguments HeardJan 13, 2026
Decision ReleasedJun 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

Decision record

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.

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

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh(majority)

B. P. J. is a transgender girl who wants to live her life consistent with her gender identity.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor(dissent)

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.

Based on 30 merits cases argued in January since 1995.Argument and decision days

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