The Supreme Court set a date in January to hear two cases having to do with transgender-identifying males competing in female sports.
The High Court released its calendar on Wednesday showing justices will hear oral arguments in both Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Jan. 13, 2026.
The case, Little v. Hecox, surrounds Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, a law passed by the state legislature seeking to protect women and girls’ sports from the incursion of trans-identifying male athletes. A lower court ultimately blocked the law, which is similar to more than two dozen other laws passed around the United States protecting women’s sports.
Idaho is asking the Supreme Court to answer whether laws that seek to protect women and girls’ sports by limiting participating based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Lindsay Hecox, the athlete who filed the Idaho case, asked the Supreme Court in September to dismiss the case as moot — that is, no longer a live controversy — after she moved to voluntarily dismiss the case in the lower court,” SCOTUSblog reported. “But the justices in October put off deciding that request until oral argument.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case surrounds a lawsuit filed by the parent of a transgender-identifying student against a state law barring males from competing in female sports. A lower court blocked the law pending appeal. Now, West Virginia is asking the High Court to answer whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex, and whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
The court will hear a total of seven arguments over five days in January, between Jan. 12 and Jan. 21.
The Supreme Court slated several other high profile cases for January, including Wolford v. Lopez on Jan. 20, which is a challenge to a Hawaii law making it a crime for concealed carry permit holders to carry a handgun on private property unless he or she has been “given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property,” as well as public areas like parks, playgrounds, and beaches. The Supreme Court is being asked if a lower court erred in allowing the law to stand.
The High Court will also hear arguments in Trump v. Cook on Jan. 21. The case has to do with President Trump’s firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations and centers on the question of when a president can remove a Fed governor before the end of a statutory 14-year term. As Breitbart News reported, the law says that a president can remove a governor “for cause” but does not specify what counts as appropriate cause. The district court said the allegations of mortgage fraud did not qualify and that Trump failed to provide adequate due process when attempting to remove Cook.
The 6-3 majority conservative Supreme Court has notably dealt major blows this year to transgender activists pushing for sex changes for minors and LGTBQ+ propaganda in schools and more recently appeared skeptical of Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.
