## Facts

- Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (HB 500), requiring school sports teams to be designated as “male,” “female,” or “coed” based on “biological sex,” and barring “students of the male sex” from female teams.
- HB 500 created a dispute process allowing any person to challenge a female athlete’s sex, requiring medical verification based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or endogenous testosterone levels.
- The Act authorized private lawsuits by students claiming deprivation of athletic opportunities or other harms from violations.
- Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and Boise State University student, sought to try out for women’s track and cross-country teams but alleged HB 500 would exclude her categorically.
- Jane Doe, a cisgender high school athlete perceived as “masculine,” alleged a credible risk of being challenged and compelled to submit private medical information under the dispute process.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction before the law’s enforcement in the 2020–2021 school year and asserted claims under Equal Protection, Title IX, Due Process, and the Fourth Amendment.
- Two cisgender college athletes moved to intervene to defend HB 500; state defendants moved to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing and whether their claims were ripe before actual enforcement of HB 500.
2. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction based on likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and the public interest.
3. Whether HB 500 likely violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding transgender women from women’s teams and imposing sex-verification procedures on female athletes.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated cognizable federal claims (including Title IX and constitutional privacy/bodily integrity theories) sufficient to survive dismissal as to some claims and defendants.
5. Whether the cisgender athletes were entitled to intervene to defend the statute.

## Decision

- Granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of HB 500 pending further proceedings.
- Held plaintiffs showed standing and ripeness: Hecox faced direct exclusion by the statute, and Doe faced a non-speculative risk of being subjected to the dispute process and medical privacy invasion.
- Found plaintiffs likely to succeed on Equal Protection claims because HB 500 was a sex-based classification that also targeted transgender women and was not substantially related to the stated objectives.
- Concluded plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm through loss of athletic opportunities, stigma, and threatened invasion of medical privacy, and that likely constitutional violations constituted irreparable injury.
- Determined the balance of equities and public interest favored maintaining the status quo and preventing unconstitutional discrimination in education.
- Granted intervention to the cisgender athletes.
- Granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing core Equal Protection and Title IX challenges to proceed while dismissing certain claims and/or defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Pre-enforcement standing exists where a statute by its terms restricts opportunities or alters legal rights, creating a concrete, imminent injury redressable by injunctive relief.
- Sex-based classifications are subject to at least intermediate scrutiny and must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.
- A categorical exclusion and related enforcement mechanisms may fail intermediate scrutiny when overinclusive (sweeping in individuals who do not threaten the asserted interest) and underinclusive (omitting comparable regulation of similarly situated groups).
- Credible risk of compelled disclosure of intimate medical information can constitute irreparable harm supporting preliminary injunctive relief.
- A likely deprivation of constitutional rights, even for limited time, supports a finding of irreparable injury in the preliminary injunction analysis.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined Idaho’s HB 500, concluding that the plaintiffs had standing and showed a likelihood of success on Equal Protection grounds because the law’s categorical bar on transgender women and its sex-dispute verification process were not substantially related to the state’s asserted interest in women’s athletic opportunities, and because enforcement would cause irreparable harm and disserved the public interest in constitutional compliance.


Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930 (D. Idaho 2020)