Is the Supreme Court Upholding a Ban on Transgender Athletes?

Xylee Alvarez

January 2026

The Supreme Court confronts whether the Constitution protects individuals who fall outside legislative averages or leaves them behind. 

This week, the Supreme Court heard a case of unmistakable gravity. Little v. Hecox arrived with fear, anger, and the very real sense that the Court is being asked to draw a line that will shape lives for decades to come. At the center of the case is Idaho’s law barring transgender women from competing on women’s sports teams. Idaho frames the law as protective of women's safety, fairness, and opportunity. However, standing across from the state is Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who says the law does something far more devastating: it tells her, and all other transgender athletes, that no matter what they do, no matter the science, no matter their day-to-day reality, they will never belong. 

Throughout Idaho’s oral argument, they insisted their law is simple. It separates sports based on sex, not gender identity. According to the state, this is about fairness and safety, right? They say it has nothing to do with transgender people at all. 

That argument simply isn’t gonna work for me, and frankly, I think it collapses under even minimal scrutiny. 

This law exists because of transgender athletes. The legislative history, the rhetoric surrounding its passage, and the way it operates clearly point in one direction: it excludes transgender women categorically, without regard to their actual abilities or circumstances. The state does not ask whether Lindsay Hecox has a fair advantage. It does not ask if she poses a safety risk. The state does not care. The law assumes the answer before the question is even asked, and that’s just disappointing. 

What makes this case more alarming than it already is was not Idaho’s position but how some of the Justices seemed to be taking it. 

During the oral argument, Idaho suggested that as-applied equal protection challenges shouldn’t really exist once a law passes intermediate scrutiny. In plain terms, that means if a law works most of the time, people harmed at the margins are simply out of luck. 

THAT should stop anyone cold.

Justice Kagan seemed to be pushing back quite a bit throughout the oral argument, clearly struck by Idaho’s claim, and unsettled by what that would mean. If the Court accepts Idaho’s logic, equal protection becomes a numbers game, where rarity equals disposability. Justice Sotomayor focused on what this litigation has done to Hecox as a person, reminding the court that plaintiffs are not hypotheticals. They are not statistics. They live with the consequences of these pivotal cases forever. The harm here is not theoretical. It is indeed personal to many!

This case goes deeper than being able to play sports. It’s about whether the Equal Protection Clause still protects individuals or whether it only protects categories that are politically comfortable. If the Court blesses Idaho’s approach, it won’t just affect transgender athletes. It will weaken the idea that constitutional rights apply at the margins at all. 

The court will likely avoid a sweeping ruling. I feel that this is gonna be a very narrow decision, possibly on mootness or even limited grounds. However, even a restrained opinion could still very loudly reshape equal protection law by signaling that categorical exclusions are acceptable so long as they are convenient and politically popular. I think the court will have a 6-3 decision in favor of Little.