IDAHO — Oral arguments have concluded in the Supreme Court for Little v. Hocox. The case centers around whether laws that limit participation in women’s and girls’ sports to those assigned female at birth violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Alan Hurst, speaking on behalf of Idaho, emphasized the state’s stance.
“Idaho’s law classifies on the basis of sex because sex is what matters in sports,” Hurst said.
The law, supported by Idaho Governor Brad Little, aims to restrict women’s teams to females based on sex, not gender identity.
“Gender identity does not matter in sports and that’s why Idaho’s law does not classify on the basis of gender identity,” Hurst continued. “It treats all males equally and all females equally, regardless of identity, and its purpose is exactly what the legislature said preserving women’s equal opportunity.”
Hurst also argued that the law upholds rather than violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“Denying special treatment isn’t classifying on the basis of transgender status. It’s consciously choosing not to.”
On the other side, Kathleen Hartnett, attorney for the Hocox, argued that the law excludes individuals from teams that align with their gender identity, thus infringing on equal protection rights.
“The broader goal here, of course, is not sex separation for its own sake,” Hartnett said. “The idea is to have equality in sports. And that’s the ultimate objective that I think we’re all talking about, not separation.”
During oral arguments Justices clarified that the law specifically targets transgender women in women’s sports, with Justice Barrett asking if biological women and transgender men can still participate in men’s sports in Idaho.
Justice Alito also questioned the Hocox’s lawyer about what she would say to women who support a transgender ban in sports.
“There are an awful lot of female athletes, who, are strongly opposed to participation by trans athletes in competitions with them,” Alito said. “What what do you say about them? Are they are they bigots?”
The lawyer responded, “No, Your Honor, I would never call anyone that. That’s the reason why there is intermediate scrutiny, or even in in rational review. You don’t legislate based on undifferentiated fears, you based on trying to make a rational response to what is a perceived issue.”
The decision to remove the ninth circuit’s injunction or declare the law constituional is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.
A decision is expected in the Summer.
