Judge BLOCKS Last-Ditch Plot Against Supreme Court

A judge holding a gavel above a wooden block

A federal judge has blocked a last-ditch attempt by transgender activists to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on state laws protecting women’s sports, clearing the path for a landmark decision that could finally end the assault on Title IX protections.

Story Highlights

U.S. District Judge David Nye rejected a motion to dismiss the Little v. Hecox case, calling the timing “manipulative”
Supreme Court will now hear arguments on Idaho’s law banning biological males from women’s sports
Twenty-seven state attorneys general have filed briefs supporting Idaho’s position to protect female athletes
The ruling could set national precedent defending women’s sports against transgender overreach

Judge Rejects Strategic Dismissal Attempt

U.S. District Judge David Nye delivered a decisive blow to transgender activists attempting to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny of women’s sports protections. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender athlete challenging Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, filed a motion to dismiss the case after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it in July 2025. Judge Nye rejected this transparent attempt at judicial manipulation, stating Idaho’s arguments deserve to be heard “once and for all.” The timing of Hecox’s dismissal motion reveals the weakness of the transgender sports agenda when faced with constitutional scrutiny.

The case originated in 2020 when Hecox sued Idaho over its law preventing biological males from competing in women’s athletics. Lower courts had previously blocked enforcement through injunctions, but the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari signals potential restoration of common-sense protections for female athletes. The Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling upholding the injunction demonstrates how liberal courts have systematically undermined state efforts to preserve competitive fairness in women’s sports.

Nationwide Support for Women’s Sports Protection

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador leads a coalition of 27 state attorneys general and Guam supporting the law, demonstrating widespread recognition that biological sex matters in athletic competition. This broad coalition reflects growing pushback against progressive attempts to erase the distinction between male and female athletes. The Supreme Court will simultaneously consider West Virginia Board of Education v. B.P.J., another case challenging state protections for women’s sports, indicating the justices recognize the national importance of this constitutional question.

The Biden administration’s 2024 regulations prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in education fueled these legal challenges, representing federal overreach into state educational policy. These regulations threatened to force schools nationwide to allow biological males into female sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, suggests the current Court may be more receptive to protecting children from transgender ideology.

Constitutional Stakes for Title IX and Women’s Rights

The Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify whether Title IX’s sex-based protections apply to biological sex or subjective gender identity, with profound implications for women’s athletics nationwide. Legal experts note the decision could determine whether gender identity receives heightened constitutional protection under the Equal Protection Clause. Previous circuit court decisions applying intermediate scrutiny to these cases ignored the fundamental purpose of Title IX: protecting opportunities for biological females in education and athletics.

Conservative advocates emphasize that protecting women’s sports preserves competitive fairness and scholarship opportunities earned through decades of Title IX enforcement. The small number of transgender athletes involved does not diminish the constitutional principle at stake: whether states retain authority to define sex-based categories or must submit to federal gender ideology mandates. This case represents a critical test of whether the Supreme Court will defend biological reality against progressive social engineering that threatens women’s achievements in athletics.