NEWNow you can listen to Pak Gazette articles!
A date has officially been set for oral arguments in two Supreme Court battles that could determine the future of women’s sports.
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, will be the day SCOTUS judges hear arguments in the Little vs. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ, which address states’ constitutional rights to prohibit biological males from participating in women’s and girls’ sports.
However, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a prominent defense attorney in Little v. Hecox previously told Pak Gazette Digital that he hopes the Supreme Court’s decision will have a broader impact than simply addressing states’ rights.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON PakGazette.Com
“I think they’re going to have an important decision about whether men can participate in women’s sports and, more importantly, how to determine whether transgender people are protected by the federal constitution and state and federal laws,” Labrador said.
John Bursch of the Alliance of Defending Freedom, a firm working on the defense of both cases, suggested that the firm will not rely on the argument that laws for trans athletes should be a states’ rights issue. He would discuss the question of the bigger picture.
“I don’t think we need to do that,” Bursch said of the states’ rights argument. “It is clearly the correct result under Title IX, under the equal protection clause and under common sense, that men and women are different.”
What to know about the two cases
The lawsuit of Little v. Hecox was initially introduced by trans athlete Lindsay Hecox in 2020, when the athlete wanted to join the women’s cross-country team at Boise State and was blocked by a state law preventing trans athletes from competing in women’s sports.
Hecox was joined by an unnamed biological student, Jane Doe, who was concerned about the possibility of being subjected to the sexual dispute verification process. The challenge was successful, as a federal judge blocked the Idaho state law.
LEGAL DEFENSE TO ‘SAVE WOMEN’S SPORTS’ GIVES RIGHT TO MAKE ARGUMENTS TO SCOTUS AMID TRANS ATHLETES DISPUTE
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a court order blocking the state law in 2023, before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in July. Hecox then asked SCOTUS last month to drop the challenge, claiming the athlete “has therefore decided to permanently retire and refrain from playing any women’s sport at BSU or in Idaho.”
Hecox attempted to have the case dismissed in September after the Supreme Court agreed in July to hear the case, but U.S. District Judge David Nye, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, denied Hecox’s motion to dismiss the case.
Becky Pepper-Jackson attends the Lambda Legal Liberty Awards on June 8, 2023 in New York City. (Roy Rochlin/Getty Images for Lambda Legal)
The West Virginia v. BPJ was filed against the state of West Virginia by trans athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, who was initially granted a preliminary injunction allowing the athlete to participate on the school’s sports teams. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state’s appeal.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE Pak Gazette APP
In a response brief, the athlete’s mother, Heather Jackson, argued that West Virginia Law banning transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports violates Title IX.
However, Title IX does not explicitly protect the right of biologically male transgender people to identify as female. The current administration and state government of West Virginia do not interpret Title IX to protect that right.
