On January 13th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Little v. Hecox where the question concerned whether laws that barred biological men from participating in women’s sports violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This court case was met with much expectation from conservatives and progressives about the future of transgender issues in the United States.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Background
In 2020, Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (signed by Governor Brad Little), which prohibits biological men who claim a female identity from participating in women’s sports from elementary school through college. Lindsay Hecox is a transgender woman (biological man) who has taken hormones that lowered his testosterone levels desired to run for Boise State University’s women’s cross-country team (there’s also a “cisgender” high school athlete under the name “Jane Doe”). Hecox lawyers argue that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates his constitutional rights, most importantly the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho filed a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction. The panel scrutinized the law’s discrimination on sex and transgender status and not simply promoting athletic equity among women’s sports. Then, on July 3rd, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the lower courts’ rulings.
Constitutional Debate
In Hecox’s team’s brief, they argue before the Court that this case is moot, the law is discriminatory, and the law fails the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. Their argument that their case is moot (lost its significance) because Hecox voluntarily didn’t participate in collegiate sports at Boise State University. The discrimination portion of their argument is based upon two independent grounds: transgender status and biological sex. The law’s text was designed to specifically bar transgender individuals even if their hormone levels were comparable to biological women. Additionally, Hecox’s team argues that the law classifies based on sex, which should subject the case to scrutiny.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, laws that classify individuals are evaluated under different levels of judicial scrutiny. Thus, Hecox’s team argues that the state must show that the law serves an important governmental interest and the law may achieve that interest. In summary, their foundational argument is that since Hecox’s testosterone levels were within the typical female range, he shouldn’t have been barred from women’s sports.
Idaho, by contrast, argues that the statute isn’t discriminatory but protective of women’s rights. The state contends that the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act draws distinctions not on the basis of animus towards transgender identifying individuals, but on the basis of biological sex differences that are directly relevant to athletic competition. Idaho maintains the reality that male puberty confers physical advantages that persist even after the testosterone suppression of “trans affirming” medication. Therefore, the law serves an important governmental interest of ensuring fair competition and protecting athletic opportunities for women.
Cultural Issues
Little v. Hecox reflects a border cultural conflict over sex and gender “identity,” and ultimately how fairness should be understood in the law and society. Supporters of laws like Idaho’s argue that women’s sports exist precisely because of the biological differences between men and women, and erasing those distinctions undermines the direct purpose of sex-segregated athletics. Thus, allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports directly disadvantages female athletes and undermines their opportunities promised under Title IX.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have a myriad of implications beyond sports. It will further signal the Court’s understanding of the differences between sex and gender identity, even the legal status of transgender individuals, and ultimately the limits of the Equal Protection Clause in the emerging cultural disputes on LGBTQ+ issues.
Christian Response
For Christians, this case raises important questions about justice and anthropology. Scripture affirms the equal dignity of all persons as image-bearers (Gen 1:27), even those who are trans identifying. Christians should resist the urge for cruelty and mockery while maintaining the reality of biological sex. As the Christian tradition consistently affirms that sex is essential to the human identity and cannot be separated from one’s biological reality.
Faithfulness on this issue requires holding both truths in tension by speaking boldly about the inherent differences and enduring nature of one’s biological sex, while recognizing the humanity of transgender individuals. In practical terms, we must support policies (such as the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in Idaho and in other states) that protect fairness and opportunity, and promote the reality of biological sex that provide our nation to flourish. We should navigate this tension with godly courage, ensuring that truth will not be compromised, and for generations to come, our nation will be aligned with the reality of who God is and who man is.
As the Supreme Court considers Little v. Hecox, Christians–and all Americans–must hope for a decision that upholds justice, fairness, and the truth of biological sex. May the courts recognize the enduring reality of biological sex.
