Reported / Citable
Background
Lindsay Hecox challenged Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act, Idaho Code §§ 33-6201–06 (2020), which bars transgender women from participating in women's sports at public schools and universities. Hecox, a transgender woman who had been enrolled at Boise State University, brought an as-applied constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Act, and the Ninth Circuit panel previously affirmed that order. See Hecox v. Little, 104 F.4th 1061 (9th Cir. 2024).
On June 30, 2026, in West Virginia v. B. P. J., 146 S. Ct. 2356 (2026), the Supreme Court reversed the panel's decision affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, rejecting Hecox's constitutional challenges under the Equal Protection Clause and thus rejecting the narrow basis on which the panel had affirmed. The Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. The panel then ordered supplemental briefing on whether Hecox's case is moot and whether any other aspects of the case were affected by the B. P. J. decision.
In her supplemental brief, Hecox stated that she intended to re-enroll at Boise State in Spring 2027. Both sides agreed that Hecox was not currently enrolled, and the Boise State Registrar submitted a declaration confirming her non-enrollment. The panel granted a motion to supplement the record with that declaration.
The Court’s Holding
The panel held that the action is moot. Although a party's intent to resume an activity may be sufficient to demonstrate a live controversy, when a party relies on a declaration of future intent to avoid mootness, that declaration must be sufficiently concrete. The court cited Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1006, 1011–12 (9th Cir. 2001), and Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2017).
The panel contrasted Hecox's current showing with an earlier stage of the litigation, when it had found her non-enrollment did not moot the case because she had expressed a concrete plan to re-enroll after establishing Idaho residency and trying out for the track and cross-country teams, and had a conversation with a Boise State academic advisor to plan for re-enrollment. See Hecox v. Little, No. 20-35813, 2023 WL 1097255, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2023). Here, by contrast, Hecox offered only a conclusory statement of intent to enroll in Spring 2027 without identifying tangible or actual steps taken to effectuate re-enrollment.
Because Hecox was not enrolled and had not demonstrated a concrete plan to return, the court concluded the case was no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief could be granted, citing Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988). The panel therefore vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court to dismiss the case as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A conclusory statement of intent to resume an activity, without concrete steps or a specific plan, is insufficient to avoid mootness under Ninth Circuit precedent.
- The Ninth Circuit distinguished its earlier finding that Hecox's case was not moot, when she had shown a concrete plan to re-enroll, establish residency, and try out for teams, and had consulted an academic advisor.
- The Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. B. P. J. reversed the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the preliminary injunction and rejected Hecox's equal protection challenge to Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act.
- The panel vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot, ending the case without reaching any remaining issues in light of mootness.
- The court granted a motion to supplement the record with a declaration from the Boise State Registrar confirming Hecox's non-enrollment.
Why It Matters
This order brings to a close one of the most closely watched constitutional challenges to state laws restricting transgender athletes' participation in women's sports. After the Supreme Court's reversal on the merits, the Ninth Circuit's mootness holding ensures that no live case or controversy remains, and the preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Idaho's Act is vacated.
The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's requirement that a party seeking to avoid mootness through a declaration of future intent must provide concrete, tangible evidence of steps taken to resume the challenged activity. It also illustrates how a Supreme Court merits reversal can combine with changed factual circumstances to moot a case that had previously survived justiciability challenges.