Little v. Hecox

Brief filed: 11/25
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Year of Decision: 2026

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 263KB)opens in new window

Whether exclusionary sports participation policies against transgender individuals violate constitutional protections.

Gender Identity

These consolidated cases challenge state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that exclude transgender students from participating in school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act and West Virginia's similar legislation require that athletic teams designated for females be limited to students whose "biological sex" is female, effectively barring transgender girls and women from participating on teams that align with their gender identity.

The plaintiffs include transgender students who seek to participate in school athletics consistent with their gender identity. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and student at Boise State University, challenged Idaho's law after being prevented from trying out for the women's cross-country team. In the West Virginia case, B.P.J., a transgender girl, was barred from participating on her middle school's girls' sports teams.

Both the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals ruled in favor of the transgender students, finding that the exclusionary policies violated constitutional protections. The states appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address whether such exclusionary sports participation policies against transgender individuals violate constitutional protections.

The American Psychological Association, joined by the National Association of Social Workers and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, argues that exclusionary sports participation policies pose serious risks to the health and well-being of transgender individuals and impede clinically supported treatment for gender dysphoria.

Based on extensive psychological research, APA's position is grounded in several key findings: First, social gender transition—including participation in activities consistent with one's gender identity—is a crucial, clinically supported treatment for gender dysphoria that significantly reduces psychological distress. Second, barriers to social transition, such as sports exclusion policies, are associated with increased harassment, internalized stigma, and negative mental health outcomes for transgender individuals. Third, these exclusionary policies contribute to "minority stress" by signaling societal disapproval of transgender identities, compounding the discrimination and stigma this vulnerable population already faces.

Additionally, APA emphasizes that transgender individuals are deprived of the significant mental, physical, and psychosocial health benefits associated with organized sports participation when excluded from teams consistent with their gender identity. Research demonstrates that sports participation promotes improved mental health, social integration, physical fitness, and academic achievement—benefits that may be particularly important for transgender youth who already face disproportionate rates of depression, harassment, and educational challenges.

In 2026, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and remanded the cases. The Court held that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate women’s and men’s sports teams based on biological sex and that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by limiting female teams to biological females. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. The dissent cited APA’s amicus brief regarding gender dysphoria and the harms associated with exclusion. (Sotomayor, J., dissenting, slip op. at 5–6, citing APA Brief at 8–12, 15–24.)