Idaho AG Raul Labrador Fights for Women’s Sports in Supreme Court Trans Athlete Case

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador is spearheading a landmark Supreme Court case that could reshape the landscape of women’s sports across the United States. The case, Little vs. Hecox, stems from a 2020 Idaho law banning transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports, a move that sparked a legal battle when Boise State trans athlete Lindsay Hecox sued to join the women’s cross-country team.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case follows a federal district court’s injunction against Idaho’s law, upheld by the 9th Circuit, which argued the law might be unconstitutional. Labrador, however, is pushing for more than just a state-level ruling. He’s aiming for a national precedent that clarifies whether transgender individuals can compete in women’s sports and how their rights intersect with federal and state laws. In an exclusive interview, Labrador expressed confidence that the Court will deliver a definitive ruling on this divisive issue.

Labrador’s argument hinges on the 14th Amendment, asserting that states have the right to protect female athletes by excluding biological males from women’s sports. He’s tasked with selecting an attorney to champion this stance before the Supreme Court, a role he views as critical to the broader Save Women’s Sports movement.

The case has drawn personal stories into the spotlight, like those of former Idaho State University athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, who joined the lawsuit in 2021 after competing against a male athlete. Kenyon recalled the frustration of losing repeatedly to a biologically male competitor, a situation she felt was unfairly dismissed at the time. Her decision to join the suit was sparked by a college speech class assignment, where she advocated for legislation to protect women’s sports.

Labrador emphasized the courage of these young women, noting the harsh backlash they faced—labeled as bigots and shamed by media and peers. He also highlighted the broader societal shift, crediting evolving public discourse and political support from figures like Donald Trump and the GOP for bringing the issue to the forefront. Labrador criticized early scientific claims that downplayed biological differences, calling them contrary to common sense, and praised the growing openness in public debate.

As the case heads to the Supreme Court, it carries the weight of not just Idaho’s law but the future of competitive fairness in women’s sports nationwide. A ruling, expected as early as next year, could set a historic precedent.