Hecox v. Little
| Decision Date | 17 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-00184-DCN |
| Citation | 479 F.Supp.3d 930 |
| Parties | Lindsay HECOX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bradley LITTLE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Andrew Barr, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley, LLP, Broomfield, CO, Catherine Ann West, Pro Hac Vice, Legal Voice, Seattle, WA, Chase Strangio, Pro Hac Vice, Gabriel Arkles, Pro Hac Vice, James Esseks, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Elizabeth Prelogar, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley, LLP, Washington, DC, Kathleen Hartnett, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Richard Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation, Boise, ID, for Plaintiffs.
Dayton Patrick Reed, Steven Lamar Olsen, Office of the Attorney General, W. Scott Zanzig, Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Civil Litigation, Boise, ID, for Defendants Bradley Little, Sherri Ybarra, Individual Members of the State Board of Education, Independent School District of Boise City # 1, Coby Dennis, Individual Members of the Board of Trustees of the Independent School District of Boise City # 1, Individual Members of the Idaho Code Commission.
Dayton Patrick Reed, Steven Lamar Olsen, Office of the Attorney General, W. Scott Zanzig, Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Civil Litigation, Boise, ID, Matthew K. Wilde, for Defendants Boise State University, Marlene Tromp.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, proposed intervenors’ Motion to Intervene, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court held oral argument on July 22, 2020 and took the matters under advisement.
Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 22); GRANTS the Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 30); and GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 40).
Plaintiffs in this case challenge the constitutionality of a new Idaho law which excludes transgender women from participating on women's sports teams. Defendants assert Plaintiffs lack standing, that their claims are not ripe for review, that certain of their claims fail as a matter of law, and that they are not entitled to injunctive relief. The proposed intervenors seek to intervene to advocate for their interests as female athletes and to defend the law Plaintiffs challenge. The United States has also filed a Statement of Interest in support of Idaho's law. Dkt. 53.
The primary question before the Court—whether the Court should enjoin the State of Idaho from enforcing a newly enacted law which precludes transgender female athletes from participating on women's sports—involves complex issues relating to the rights of student athletes, physiological differences between the sexes, an individual's ability to challenge the gender of other student athletes, female athlete's rights to medical privacy and to be free from potentially invasive sex identification procedures, and the rights of all students to have complete access to educational opportunities, programs, and activities available at school. The debate regarding transgender females’ access to competing on women's sports teams has received nationwide attention and is currently being litigated in both traditional courts and the court of public opinion.
Despite the national focus on the issue, Idaho is the first and only state to categorically bar the participation of transgender women in women's student athletics. This categorical bar to girls and women who are transgender stands in stark contrast to the policies of elite athletic bodies that regulate sports both nationally and globally—including the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") and the International Olympic Committee ("IOC")—which allow transgender women to participate on female sports teams once certain specific criteria are met.
In addition to precluding women and girls who are transgender and many who are intersex from participating in women's sports, Idaho's law establishes a "dispute" process that allows a currently undefined class of individuals to challenge a student's sex. Idaho Code § 33-6203(3). If the sex of any female student athlete—whether transgender or not—is disputed, the student must undergo a potentially invasive sex verification process. This provision burdens all female athletes with the risk and embarrassment of having to "verify" their "biological sex" in order to play women's sports. Id. Similarly situated men and boys—whether transgender or not—are not subject to the dispute process because Idaho's law does not restrict individuals who wish to participate on men's teams.
Finally, as an enforcement mechanism, Idaho's law creates a private cause of action against a "school or institution of higher education" for any student "who is deprived of an athletic opportunity" or suffers any harm, whether direct or indirect, due to the participation of a woman who is transgender on a women's team. Id. § 33-6205(1). Idaho schools are also precluded from taking any "retaliation or other adverse action" against those who report an alleged violation of the law, regardless of whether the report was made in good faith or simply to harass a competitor. Id. at § 33-6205(2).
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction which would enjoin enforcement of Idaho's law pending trial on the merits. The Court will ultimately be required to decide whether Idaho's law violates Title IX and/or is unconstitutional, but that is not the question before the Court today. The question currently before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have met the criteria for enjoining enforcement of Idaho's law for the present time until a trial on the merits can be held. To issue an injunction preserving the status quo by enjoining the law's enforcement, the Court must primarily decide whether Plaintiffs have constitutional and prudential standing to challenge the law, whether they state facial or only as-applied constitutional challenges, and whether they are likely to succeed on their claim, based upon the current record, that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On March 30, 2020, Idaho Governor Bradley Little ("Governor Little") signed the Fairness in Women's Sports Act (the "Act") into law. Idaho Code Ann. § 33-6201 –6206.1 Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenges the constitutionality of the Act. Among other things, Plaintiffs contend that the Act violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and the right to be free from unconstitutional searches and seizures. Plaintiffs seek preliminary relief solely on their equal protection claim, arguing the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status by categorically barring transgender women from participating in women's sports, and also discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting all women student-athletes to the risk of having to undergo invasive, unnecessary tests to "verify" their sex, while permitting all men student-athletes to participate in men's sports without such risk. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the Act pending trial on the merits.
As the Third Circuit recently explained, in the context of issues such as those raised in the instant case, "such seemingly familiar terms as ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ can be misleading." Doe ex rel. Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist. , 897 F.3d 518, 522 (3d Cir. 2018). The Court accordingly begins by defining relevant terms utilized in this decision.
"Sex" is defined as the Id.
A person's "gender identity" is his or her "deep-core sense of self as being a particular gender." Id. "Although the detailed mechanisms are unknown, there is a medical consensus that there is a significant biologic component underlying gender identity." Dkt. 22-9, ¶ 18.2
The term "cisgender" refers to a person who identifies with the sex that person was determined to have at birth. Boyertown , 897 F.3d at 522.
"Transgender" refers to "a person whose gender identity does not align with the sex that person was determined to have at birth." Id. A transgender woman "is therefore a person who has a lasting, persistent female gender identity, though the person's sex was determined to be male at birth." Id.
Transgender individuals may experience "gender dysphoria
," which is "characterized by significant and substantial distress as result of their birth-determined sex being different from their gender identity." Id. "In order to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the incongruence must have persisted for at least six months and be accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Dkt. 22-2, ¶ 19. If left untreated, symptoms of gender dysphoria can include severe anxiety and depression, suicidality, and other serious mental health issues. Id. at ¶ 20. Attempted suicide rates in the transgender community are over 40%. Dkt. 1, at ¶ 103.
The term "intersex" is an umbrella term for a person "born with unique variations in certain physiological characteristics associated with sex, "such as chromosomes, genitals, internal organs like testes or ovaries, secondary sex characteristics, or hormone production or response." Dkt. 22-1, at 2 (citing Dkt. 22-2, ¶ 41). Some intersex traits are identified at birth, while others may not be discovered until puberty or later in life, if ever. See generally Dkt. 22-2, at 11–16.
Plaintiffs in this action include Lindsay Hecox, and Jean and John Doe on behalf of their minor daughter, Jane Doe (collectively "Plaintiffs").3 Lindsay is a transgender woman athlete who lives in Idaho and attends Boise State University ("BSU"). As part of her treatment for gender dysphoria
, Lindsay has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Childers-Gray
..."gender dysphoria" throughout this opinion. We note that other courts have recently done the same. See , e.g. , Hecox v. Little , 479 F. Supp. 3d 930, 945 (D. Idaho 2020), appeal docketed , No. 20-35813 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020).11 For the ease of the reader, we treat the consolidated cases......
-
Matsumoto v. Labrador
... ... located in another state.” Idaho Code § 18-623(3) ... The statute was signed into law by Idaho Governor Brad Little ... on April 5, 2023, and went into effect May 5, 2023, due to ... its emergency clause. [ 3 ] ... On July ... balance of equities weighs in favor of an injunction; and (4) ... that an injunction is in the public interest.” ... Hecox v. Little , 479 F.Supp.3d 930, 971 (D. Idaho ... 2020) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, ... Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)) ... ...
-
Anders v. Cal. State Univ., CASE: 1:21-cv-179-AWI-BAM
...Companies, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 514 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930, 971-72 (D. Idaho 2020) ("status quo" means "the legally relevant relationship between the parties before the controversy arose"). The controver......
-
B. P. J. v. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ.
...Here, there is an inescapable conclusion that Section 18-2-25d discriminates on the basis of transgender status. Hecox v. Little , 479 F. Supp. 3d 930, 975 (D. Idaho 2020) ("while the physiological differences the Defendants suggest support the categorical bar on transgender women's partici......
-
Key Takeaways From The New Proposed Rulemaking On Transgender Student Athletic Participation
...Inc. v. Biden, 41 F.4th 992 (8th Cir. 2022); Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, 55 F.4th 583 (8th Cir. 2022). 6 Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930 (D. Idaho 2020); Roe v. Utah High School Activities Ass'n, 2022 WL 3907182 (D. Ct. Utah Aug. 19, 2022), No. 220903262; A.M. v. Indianapoli......
-
Sex Equality's Irreconcilable Differences.
...M. v. Sonoma County, Superior Court (1981)"). (291.) For a full list, see Legislative Tracker, supra note 286. (292.) Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930, 982 (D. Idaho (293.) 550 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D. W. Va. 2021). (294.) See id. at 355 (summarizing these arguments). (295.) Id. at 350. (2......
-
Protecting Transgender Youth After Bostock: Sex Classification, Sex Stereotypes, and the Future of Equal Protection.
...See A.M. ex. rel. E.M. v. Indianapolis Pub. Sch., No. 22-CV-01075, 2022 WL 2951430, at *14 (S.D. Ind. July 26, 2022); Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930, 987 (D. Idaho 2020); B.P.J, v. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ, 550 F. Supp. 3d 347, 353-58 (S.D. W. Va. 2021). In addition, state courts in U......
-
Athletics and title IX of the 1972 education amendments
...of Scranton, No. 3:19-CV-01486, 2020 WL 5993766, at *11 n.61 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2020). 130. See Marino & Lee, supra note 118. 131. 479 F. Supp. 3d 930 (D. Idaho 2020). 132. 133. Marino & Lee, supra note 118. 134. 135. NAT’L COLL. ATHLETIC ASS’N, supra note 114. 136. Id. Hecox v. Little , AM.......
-
Gender-inclusive bathrooms: how pandemic-inspired design imperatives and the reasoning of recent federal court decisions make rejecting sex-separated facilities more possible
...CNN (Apr. 15, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti- transgender-legislation-2021/index.html . 28. See Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930 (D. Idaho 2020) (issuing preliminary injunction against enforcement of Idaho statute that would bar transgender women from participating ......