‘Trans’ athlete at center of SCOTUS girls’ sports case trying to drop lawsuit
In Little v. Hecox, in which the Equal Protection Project filed an amicus brief supporting girls sports, the transgender athlete at the center of the case is now attempting to argue the case is “moot” and should be dismissed.
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
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
No way should someone be allowed to drop a case especially at the point SCOTUS agrees to take it up because they think they are going to lose. The case caused a ton of hardship and money for others. You don’t get to say “nevermind”.
mootnesss is a valid concept – If the case is not longer an active dispute, then it is moot and should be dismissed.
Typical in this type case, the plaintiff has graduated and therefore no longer participating in high school sports. Thus Moot.
Fortunately or unfortunately mootness is also a game that can be played.
Abortion – The baby has been born, so the case is moot.
Gratz v bollinger (the companion case to Gruter). Ginsberg in dissent stated that the plaintiff was no longer trying to attend UofM therefore it was moot (note -that gratz and Grutter decisions went opposite directions).
There is a specific legal rational that a case can remain active after it otherwise becomes moot,
This does raise the question – The plaintiff could be pulling a stunt similar to the NY 2a that made it to the supreme court but where NY state law was changed which made the case moot . This was prior to bruen.
I’d disagree, for the simple reason that the assertion of mootness, here, is clearly a pretextual rationale for withdrawing a SCOTUS case that the petitioner knows, or, suspects, that he is going to lose.
That tactic is fairly and properly viewed as a greasy, underhanded and bad faith gaming of the federal court system, because the petitioner now finds that the jurisprudential playing field doesn’t favor the arguments proffered in his brief.
These types of transparent procedural chicanery and bad faith machinations should be frowned upon and rejected, entirely, which is why SCOTUS should issue an opinion in the case.
Yes – mootness is a thing
Yes – attempting mootness in this case is a very transparent attempt to avoid a ruling against the plaintiff. Very similar to the NY case where NY state law was changed to avoid an opinion against NY. That case got mooted
The NY situation was different, I’d submit, inasmuch as the law was actually changed, while the litigation was pending. That was a sneaky move, but, at least supported an argument for mootness.
Here, the Idaho law being challenged is still on the books, and, a ruling by SCOTUS is needed to provide authoritative clarity to the federal district courts, below, on the law’s validity, as well as with respect to the myriad, ongoing “cases and controversies” that are the result of tranny activism and agitprop.
If guyjones is referring to the first New York Pistol & Rifle Association case, he’s right. It was only after SCOTUS either granted cert or appeared ready to grant cert that they changed the law and argued mootness. The Court ultimately agreed despite there being several recognized mootness exceptions . . . essentially, Roberts and Kavanaugh wimped out. But then RBG passed and we got ACB as her replacement, leading to Thomas’ bombshell Bruen decision, so it all came out in the end.
In obvious test cases like this, there is an easy way for litigants to avoid the mootness trap. If you are a plaintiff, include a claim for nominal damages (if you sue merely for injunctive / declarative relief, changing the law / discontinuing the practice can trigger a mootness argument, as there is “nothing left to decide,” but having even a nominal damages claim isn’t mooted by that — why NYSR&PA didn’t do that up front is a mystery to me). If you are the defendant, counterclaim for declaratory relief.
In this specific case, Hecox is still enrolled in school but according to the suggestion filed by her lawyers, has decided not to participate in sports due to the passing of her father and the negative publicity the filing of the lawsuit brought him.
But the question is not whether Hecox can run on the track / cross country team, but rather if the law passed by the Idaho State legislature banning men in women’s sports is legal under the 14th Amendment and Title IX.
There is also the fact that a decision by the 4th Circuit in West Virginia v. B.P.J deals with the same issue – whether the law itself is unConstitutional. In deciding Hecox, the Court decides the West Virginia case as well.
Just because Hecox has decided to not run does not make the question of the Constitutionality of the law (and similar laws) moot.
Furthermore, because of the time it takes to get a case to the Supreme Court, a person could sue, the law banning trans people be enjoined, and then when the case is about to be heard by the Supreme Court, the person withdraws their compliant. This could go on forever with different plaintiffs thereby rendering the law inapplicable.
For the record, and I know this is going to cause people to down vote this comment, I am somewhat on the side of the plaintiff in this case.
It is not that I believe that men should compete in women’s sports. Far from it. I am against men in women’s sports unequivocally,
But the law has a requirement that those participating in women’s sports be tested to see if they are women. It applies to all women.
No such requirement exists for men competing in men’s sports. Men do not have to prove their gender / sex in order to compete.
That does appear to be a violation of the 14th Amendment in that we either test all athletes or test none.
It is a simple fix and that should happen, but until it does, the law seems to burden females – biological females – in requiring a test to prove their sex / gender but males do not.
Men are not tested because they have no biological disadvantage against women in sports. The biological advantage held by men is why we have sex segregated sports.
Part of the issue is Hecox wanting to be treated like a man.
Therefore, if a woman wants to act like a man – including being in the men’s locker room – that would be precluded by testing of all athletes.
“Just because Hecox has decided to not run does not make the question of the Constitutionality of the law (and similar laws) moot
But given the judiciary fetish for avoiding any rulings on constitutionality if they can rule on anything lower in the hierarchy of supremacy, I would fully expect them to jump at this excuse.
As to your other observation, very few men’s teams are actually limited to men. If a woman wants to play, she is usually welcome, as long as she can keep up with the boys. Women’s teams are protected by legislation, men’s teams are not.
Women’s teams are not protected by law……women are.
While I understand your point, if a woman wants to be treated like a man, she would have access to men’s locker rooms as well.
If you want to say that the law protects women’s sports, the testing is another burden to the women’s teams that men do not have.
I can see that as being an issue under the 14th Amendment.
This is a game leftists play WAY too much.
Its an extension of the good old ‘sue and settle’, where leftists sued leftist government bureaucrats like the EPA, who ‘settle’ the case by agreeing to do what they wanted to do in the first place but didn’t actually have the authority.
File lawsuits, get leftist hacks in robes who don’t care what the law says to give you a win, leftists schools and governments use those ‘wins’ as an excuse to radically change their laws and policies, then ‘drop the case’ when it gets appealed to somebody that would actually strike it down.
Don’t let them play these games anymore.
This person was apparently okay being portrayed as “brave” and associated with a “landmark decision,” but not with a precedent adverse to “the movement.”
I agree that, once it has gotten to the point that SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, basic fairness calls for the finality of a decision, and you shouldn’t get to just throw a fit and pick up your toys and go home, just because you think you’re about to lose.
The SC needs to decide this case and put a stop to this insanity of males putting on a dress and saying they are now females. That’s not how it works.
You’d think, with all he and his lawyers, along with the ACLU, have put into this ridiculousness, he would have strong enough principles to stay the course but, that’s not what phonies like him do.
He should be sued just for waisting everyone’s time.
Supremes take the case. Lawyers for Hilcox see the writing on the wall and attempt to short circuit the case. Supremes should smack down the lawyers and proceed. FAFO for lawyers trying to force trans on America.
“that Hecox’s previous promise to stay the case means she cannot now bow out.”
Sorry but LI is playing THEIR game by referring to this male as a she!! If Timothy doesnt have the balls to refer to this male as HE then he shouldnt be anywhere near stories involving men and women with mental health issues.
If the Court keeps the case and Hecox decides not to pursue it, would he (yes, he) still incur court and personal expenses? That might have an influence.
He is being represented by the ACLU, so it’s no out of pocket for him.
I don’t know about you, but I’m entirely down with him draining the ACLU’s coffers for a stunning legal faceplant.
It is just “he” not he/she or
Hecox’s previous promise to stay the case means ”she “ cannot now bow out.
The abuse of pronouns in the article was incredibly annoying.
I already know how three members of the court will vote.
I suspect that the case will cause those three head’s to explode !
Equal rights for women
Equal rights to abuse women
I bet he never chopped his crank off either.
The SCOTUS should force him to … and still disallow him from competing in the women’s league.
Of course it isn’t about “Lindsay.”
By a similar argument Roe v Wade was moot. Norma McCovrey had long since delivered Baby Roe by the time SCOTUS heard the case.
Correct – by that standard Roe was moot since the baby was delivered. I did have a US appeals court judge explain to me how they got around the mootness in Roe. His explanation was very thorough, though unfortunately I dont recall the logic. Based on my limited recollection, this case would remain active since it does affect future litigants.
Of course, it was Texas that tried to make the argument that the case was moot, not the plaintiff.
There are lots of exceptions to the rule of mootness, especially in obvious test cases. It all boils down to what the judges want to do — if they would prefer not to take the case, they say it’s moot; if they want to rule on it, they’ll find one of the many exceptions applies.
Curious on that playing out. The leftist states have run the clock on so many of these cases in the past. The girls impacted graduate, and then they no longer have standing… case dismissed on the mootness/standing because the courts slow walked it.
Hope they don’t get away with it on this one.
No, it wasn’t moot because she now was responsible for the effort and expense of 18 years of caring for a baby she didn’t want. If she has miscarried the baby, THEN it would have been moot. .
I don’t agree with the mootness argument here. These cases can take so long to get anywhere in the justice system that it is possible a kid can go through high school before his case gets to SCOTUS. So, saying it’s now moot because he’s not in school anymore would set a precedent that any case involving any student could be moot once that student is no longer in school.
Let it stay.
agreed
Under the standard that the kid is no longer in school would make the case moot. However, as I noted above, there is a rule and/or concept that aging up (graduating) will keep the case live. My apologies for not remembering the legal concept.
Hecox should continue to fight it like a man
(S)hecox
Is it puerile to think that Hecox is a made up name?
I’d assume it’s just a variation of the Hickok clan.
In Justice Black’s opinion in Roe V Wade, he comments that “[t]he usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review, and not simply at the date the action is initiated.” Since the “suggestion of mootness” was filed after the appellate review, the case is still, by Justice Black’s rule, active a subject to review by the Supreme Court. Now I don’t know if the current court follows Justice Black’s rule but I would suspect they will do so.
Blackmun, not Black.
Looks like they figured out that they took that one step too far. The last thing they want is an adverse ruling from SCOTUS.
Not Hecox, the ACLU. They don’t want the issue settled. Tough titties, morons. Is it that creepy lawyer Strange Something, the chick with the 15 year old starter mustache working this case. That is one repulsively creepy looking …. thing.
BTW, Hecox?? Really? LOL.
Is he going to change his name to Shevag?