Transgender student who challenged Idaho sports ban drops lawsuit

IDAHO, USA — A transgender woman who challenged Idaho’s ban on transgender athletes in women’s sports has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss her case, citing personal safety concerns and a desire to focus on graduating from college.

Lindsay Hecox, now 24 and a senior at Boise State University, filed a suggestion of mootness with the Supreme Court on Sept. 2, asking the justices to vacate a lower court ruling in her favor and dismiss the case entirely. 

In legal terms, a case becomes “moot” when there’s no longer a live controversy to resolve. Since Hecox is no longer seeking to participate in women’s sports and has dropped her lawsuit, she claims there is nothing left for the courts to decide.

Hecox voluntarily dismissed her complaint with prejudice, permanently ending her legal challenge to House Bill 500, Idaho’s 2020 law that bars transgender girls and women from participating in school-sponsored women’s sports teams.

In a declaration attached to the court filing, Hecox said she has faced “negative public scrutiny from certain quarters” since filing the lawsuit in 2020 and fears continued litigation will subject her to harassment that could harm her mental health, safety and ability to graduate.

“I am afraid that if I continue my lawsuit, I will personally be subjected to harassment that will negatively impact my mental health, my safety, and my ability to graduate as soon as possible,” Hecox stated.

The case began in April 2020 when Hecox, then a 19-year-old freshman, sued Idaho over HB 500, which Gov. Brad Little had signed into law the previous month. The legislation requires athletic teams at public schools, colleges and universities to be designated based on “biological sex” as male, female, or coed, and explicitly states that teams designated for women or girls “shall not be open to the male sex.”

Hecox said she wanted to try out for BSU’s women’s track and cross-country teams. Under NCAA rules at the time, she was eligible to compete in women’s intercollegiate sports.

“The value of athletics for trans people is just as important for anyone else,” Hecox said during a 2020 media briefing when the lawsuit was filed. “The impact of this law on me is very devastating.”

The legal complaint argued that HB 500 constituted “impermissible and baseless discrimination” and violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Title IX.

In August 2020, U.S. District Court Judge David Nye granted Hecox’s request for a preliminary injunction, concluding she was likely to succeed on her equal protection challenge. The ruling temporarily blocked Idaho from enforcing the law against transgender athletes.

Idaho appealed the decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction in June 2024. The appeals court determined that Hecox’s case was not moot despite her initial failure to make the NCAA track team and temporary withdrawal from classes in late 2020, noting she had “a concrete plan to re-enroll and try out for BSU sports teams” and had followed through by playing for the women’s club soccer team.

On July 3, 2025, the Supreme Court granted Idaho’s petition for review, agreeing to hear the case alongside a similar dispute from West Virginia. The justices were scheduled to consider whether laws banning transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports violate the Equal Protection Clause.

However, Hecox said her personal circumstances have changed significantly since the case began. According to her declaration, illness and her father’s death in 2022 created academic and personal setbacks that delayed her graduation. She now expects to complete her degree in May 2026 rather than the traditional four years.

“It is important to me to be able to graduate as soon as possible, including for both personal and financial reasons,” Hecox stated. “After graduating, I plan to move to be closer to my family.”

Hecox said she has stopped participating in women’s club soccer at BSU and will not engage in any women’s sports covered by HB 500 while in Idaho. She also pledged not to file another lawsuit challenging the law.

Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst, representing the state, said his office intends to oppose Hecox’s suggestion of mootness. In a Sept. 3 letter to the Supreme Court, Hurst requested a 14-day extension to respond, citing the complexity of preparing both a response to the mootness suggestion and the state’s merits brief, which were originally due on the same day.

The Supreme Court has previously found cases moot when plaintiffs abandon their claims, as occurred in several cases cited in Hecox’s filing. If the justices agree the case is moot, they would likely vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remand the case with instructions to dismiss, effectively erasing the legal precedent that favored transgender athletes.

The development could affect the broader national debate over transgender participation in sports. At least 20 states have enacted similar laws since 2020, and the issue has become a focal point in political campaigns and legislative battles nationwide.

HB 500 was part of a broader package of Idaho legislation targeting transgender rights. The same day Little signed the sports ban, he also signed HB 509, which prohibits changing gender markers on Idaho birth certificates. 

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Hecox’s mootness suggestion. If the justices reject her argument and find the case should proceed, briefs would be due later this year.

The parallel case from West Virginia, B.P.J. v. West Virginia, which presents similar constitutional questions about transgender athlete bans, remains on the Supreme Court’s docket.