Tourism Africa introduces
A date is set for oral arguments for two Supreme Court battles that could determine the future of women's sports.
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, will be the day SCOTUS justices hear arguments in the Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. cases, which address the constitutional rights of states to ban biological males from women's and girls sports.
However, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a leading defense attorney in Little v. Hecox, previously told Fox News Digital he hopes the Supreme Court's decision will have a more sweeping impact than simply addressing the rights of states.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
"I think they're going to have a big ruling on whether men can participate in women's sports, and, more importantly, how to determine whether transgender individuals are protected by the federal Constitution and state and federal laws," Labrador said.
John Bursch of Alliance of Defending Freedom, a firm working with the defense of both cases, suggested the firm won't lean on the argument that trans athlete laws should be a states' rights issue. He would argue a bigger picture issue.
"I don't think we need to do that," Bursch said of making the states' rights argument. "It's clearly the right result under Title IX, under the equal protection clause and under common sense, that men and women are different."
LEGAL DEFENSE TO 'SAVE WOMEN'S SPORTS' GRANTED RIGHT TO MAKE ARGUMENT TO SCOTUS AMID TRANS ATHLETE DISPUTE
The Little v. Hecox lawsuit was initially filed by trans athlete Lindsay Hecox in 2020, when the athlete wanted to join the women's cross-country team at Boise State and had the state's law to prevent trans athletes from competing in women's sports blocked.
Hecox was joined by an anonymous biological female student, Jane Doe, who was concerned about the potential of being subjected to the sex dispute verification process. The challenge was successful when a federal judge blocked Idaho's state law.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld an injunction blocking the state law in 2023, before the Supreme Court agreed in July to hear the case. Hecox then asked SCOTUS last month to drop the challenge, claiming the athlete "has therefore decided to permanently withdraw and refrain from playing any women's sports at BSU or in Idaho."
Hecox tried 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, rejected Hecox's motion to dismiss the case.
The West Virginia v. B.P.J. lawsuit was brought 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 4th 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.
In a response brief, the athlete's mother, Heather Jackson, argued West Virginia's law that prohibits 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 women. The Trump administration and West Virginia state government do not interpret Title IX as protective of that right.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
