Background
Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman, challenged the constitutionality of Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, Idaho Code §§ 33-6201–06 (2020), which bars transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams at Idaho public schools and universities. Hecox, who had been a student at Boise State University, brought an as-applied challenge to the Act’s biological sex classification under the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that the classification lacked a substantial relationship to the State’s asserted interests in safety and competitive fairness and that the Act impermissibly discriminated against transgender athletes. The district court preliminarily enjoined Idaho’s enforcement of the Act, and a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed that order. See Hecox v. Little, 104 F.4th 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2024).
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. B. P. J., 146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026), reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Court rejected Hecox’s equal protection challenges to the Act, 146 S. Ct. at 2379, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. During the Supreme Court proceedings, Hecox had stated that she “will cease playing women’s sports in any context covered by the Idaho law,” but the Court declined to find the case moot at that time because she had changed her mind before and “remains an enrolled student at Boise State.” Id. at 2373 n.3 (citation modified). Following remand, the Ninth Circuit panel ordered supplemental briefing from the parties on whether Hecox’s case is now moot and whether any other aspects of the case are affected by the B. P. J. decision.
The Court’s Holding
The panel held that the action is moot. Both sides agreed that Hecox is not currently enrolled at Boise State, and the Boise State Registrar submitted a declaration confirming her non-enrollment; the panel granted the motion to supplement the record with that declaration. Hecox argued in her supplemental brief that she “intends to re-enroll in Spring 2027,” but the panel found that statement insufficient to carry her burden of demonstrating a live controversy.
The panel acknowledged that a party’s intent to resume an activity can be sufficient to demonstrate a live controversy, citing Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1006, 1011–12 (9th Cir. 2001). However, when a party relies on a declaration of future intent to avoid mootness, that declaration must be sufficiently concrete, citing Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2017). The panel contrasted the present circumstances with its prior consideration of the mootness question in 2023, when it found no mootness because Hecox had “expressed a concrete plan to re-enroll after establishing Idaho state residency and try out for the track and cross-country teams” and “had a conversation with a BSU academic advisor” to plan for her re-enrollment. See Hecox v. Little, No. 20-35813, 2023 WL 1097255, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2023). Here, by contrast, Hecox offered only a conclusory statement of intent to enroll in Spring 2027 without identifying tangible or actual steps taken to effectuate re-enrollment.
Concluding that Hecox’s non-enrollment means the case is no longer “a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted,” quoting Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), the panel vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and ordered the case dismissed as moot because plaintiff Lindsay Hecox is no longer enrolled at Boise State University.
- A party’s bare statement of intent to resume an activity—here, re-enrollment in Spring 2027—is insufficient to avoid mootness absent a concrete plan or tangible steps toward that goal.
- The order follows the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B. P. J., 146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026), which rejected Hecox’s Equal Protection Clause challenges to the Act and reversed the Ninth Circuit’s prior affirmance of the injunction.
Why It Matters
This order brings an end to one of the most closely watched challenges to state laws restricting transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports. Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the equal protection claims in B. P. J., the Ninth Circuit’s mootness holding formally dissolves the preliminary injunction that had blocked enforcement of Idaho’s Act since 2020 and closes the case at the district court level.
The decision also reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s mootness doctrine regarding declarations of future intent. Practitioners seeking to keep a case alive based on a plaintiff’s stated intention to resume an activity should ensure the record contains concrete, tangible steps toward that end—such as specific plans, communications with relevant officials, or other demonstrable actions—rather than relying on conclusory statements alone.