BUZZ
Key Takeaways
- A federal court rejected the ACLU's attempt to drop its own case against an Idaho law that bars gender-confused men from competing in women's sports, affirming that the case can proceed to the Supreme Court.
- The ruling was celebrated by Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, who asserted the state's right to present its case at the Supreme Court, while the ACLU vowed to continue advocating for men to compete in girls' sports.
A federal court put the kibosh on a maneuver by the ACLU to stop its own lawsuit against an Idaho law that prevents men from competing on girls’ sports teams.
Though for years the ACLU and its allies have said the law is “hateful” and “harmful,” the group tried to get its primary plaintiff to drop out of the case, rendering it moot. Their plaintiff is a male who goes by the name “Lindsay” Hecox (pictured) and wanted to run on the girls’ cross-country and track team at Boise State University.
The Supreme Court is set to hear the case, and a related one, this October term. Over the summer, it rejected similar arguments, also brought by the ACLU, that prohibitions on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors discriminate on the basis of sex. The ACLU filed a similar request with the Supreme Court to remove Hecox, though no ruling has been issued.
U.S. District Judge David Nye recently rejected the motion. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Idaho’s law, said the Supreme Court should likewise reject the ACLU’s request.
“[Idaho] has a fair right to have its arguments heard and adjudicated once and for all,” Nye wrote. “[T]he Court feels [Hecox’s] mootness argument is, as above, somewhat manipulative to avoid Supreme Court review and should not be endorsed.”
“This strengthens @ADFLegal’s argument to SCOTUS that it too should reject the attempt to scuttle the case,” President Kristen Waggoner wrote on X. “We hope to have an answer soon.”
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador celebrated the ruling.
“The district court has ruled that after years of litigation, Idaho has earned the right to present our case to the nation’s highest court,” the attorney general wrote in a news release. “This decision keeps our lawsuit alive, and I won’t stop until women and girls are safe to compete, participate, and excel in competitive sports.”
The ACLU told the media it will continue to fight for “transgender women.”
“Lindsay ended her participation in any women’s athletic programs covered by HB 500 to prioritize finishing her degree at Boise State and her personal safety and wellness. Lindsay withdrew her challenge to Idaho’s HB 500 and that remains unchanged,” the legal group told Fox News. “In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the U.S. Supreme Court will address a challenge to a nearly identical law. We will continue to advocate for the rights of all women and girls, including transgender women and girls.”
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley wrote critically of the ACLU’s maneuver.
“After winning before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review,” Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote on his commentary website. “Hecox clearly did not like the prospects on appeal and sought to withdraw the case after the granting of certiorari.”
Professor Turley said he expects Idaho to win at the Supreme Court. West Virginia is defending a similar law in front of the Court.
“This is one of two cases focused on the issue of trans athletes in women’s sports to be heard by the Supreme Court this term,” Turley wrote. “The prospects, in my view, favor the challengers on appeal and a ruling in favor of such state laws.”
He said groups have tried “gaming the system” before when it seemed likely their case would lose.
MORE: Men in girls’ sports is ‘damaging,’ women’s center tells Supreme Court
