In Little v. Hecox, a high profile case accepted for review at the U.S. Supreme Court, and in which the Equal Protection Project filed an amicus brief, the transgender athlete at the center of the case is now attempting to argue the case is “moot” and should be dismissed.
It all started in April 2020, when “Lindsay” Hecox, a university student in Idaho, brought a lawsuit challenging the state’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”
This law restricts sports participation on women’s college sports teams to women, a completely noncontroversial prospect for anyone who doesn’t rely on TikTok for their science education or political philosophy.
But Hecox, a biological male (also known as a male) wanted to compete on the women’s track and cross country teams, nonetheless.
After several rounds of litigation at a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, both of which concluded the law violated Hecox’s right to equal protection, the case reached the Supreme Court.
And unlike most petitions to the high court, the case was granted for review (which requires the vote of at least four of the nine justices). Clearly, the Court is ready and willing to take this issue on and settle the matter definitively.
Apparently, Hecox was so fired up about their case being heard at the Supreme Court, they even agreed to “stay” all proceedings in the district court while the high court was deciding in order to make sure the case would proceed.
The best laid plans of mice and men…or men who think they are women…
Hecox, represented by the ACLU, has now filed a “suggestion of mootness” with the Court which argues they should drop the case.
Not only does he/she now claim he/she no longer wants to play college sports on women’s teams, but filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” at the district court in order to end the case.
In other words, according to his/her argument, there is nothing left to decide.
For their part, the petitioners have strongly opposed Hecox’s attempt to argue mootness, maintaining amongst other things that Hecox’s previous promise to stay the case means she cannot now bow out.
Of course, the obvious question on everyone’s mind is what could possibly have changed between the start of the case and the present that would cause Hecox to perform such a dramatic one-eighty. Why, after fighting for years to get their case to the Supreme Court would he/she now decide to drop the matter?
The answer is obvious: United States v. Skrmetti.
Decided earlier this year and directly before the Court accepted Hecox’s case for review, in Skrmetti the Court rejected the precise kinds of equal protection arguments Hecox plans to make, and concluded a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender kids (also known as mentally ill kids) was perfectly constitutional.
In other words, Hecox saw the writing on the wall and is now trying to game the system and keep the justices away from rendering the same kind of decision in his/her case and preventing men from playing on women’s sports teams.
But Hecox shouldn’t get to drop the case just because he/she knows he/she is going to lose. Not only would this run afoul of the previous agreement to stay the case but is just plain being a poor sport.
And good sportsmanship applies whether we are talking about skirmishes on the field or in the courtroom.
The Supreme Court should allow the case to proceed and enforce the Constitution.
Reminder: we are a small organization going up against powerful and wealthy government and private institutions devoted to DEI discrimination. Donations are greatly needed and appreciated.
———–
Timothy R. Snowball is a Senior Attorney at the Equal Protection Project.
@1776_snowball
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY