Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito didn’t hold back during a recent hearing, pressing hard on a fundamental question: what does it mean to be a man or a woman under the law?
On Tuesday, Alito grilled Kathleen R. Hartnett, an attorney representing a biological male athlete in the case Little v. Hecox, over Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. The law prohibits transgender women from competing on women’s sports teams at Boise State University. The central issue revolves around whether such bans violate the equal protection clause by discriminating based on sex.
According to Fox News, the broader debate involves similar laws in Idaho and West Virginia, which restrict transgender athletes identifying as women from joining teams aligned with their gender identity. Hartnett argued that the Idaho statute categorically excludes those classified as birth-sex males, including the plaintiff, Lindsay, from women’s teams. Lawyers defending the bans maintain that separating sports by biological sex upholds fairness and safety for female athletes while aligning with Title IX definitions.
The exchange between Alito and Hartnett turned sharp when the justice zeroed in on the core of equal protection analysis. He asked how a court could rule on sex-based discrimination without a clear understanding of what “sex” means in this context.
Hartnett stumbled on providing a concrete answer, admitting, “We do not have a definition for the court. We’re not disputing the definition here.” That sidestep didn’t exactly clarify things, and it leaves the door wide open to question how laws can be fairly applied without agreed-upon terms.
Instead of defining the terms, Hartnett focused on the statute’s impact, arguing that it excludes a specific group without aligning with the state’s own goals. “What we’re saying is the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth-sex males categorically from women’s teams and there is a subset of those birth-sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest,” she said. This argument feels like dodging the bigger issue Alito raised—how do we even start this discussion without a foundation?
The issue has sparked intense debate over balancing individual rights with competitive integrity in sports. Supporters of Idaho’s law argue it’s a necessary line to protect female athletes from physical disadvantages, a concern rooted in observable biological differences. Critics, however, see it as a blanket policy that unfairly targets a small group without considering individual circumstances. While their point has emotional pull, it often glosses over the practical challenges of ensuring fair play in competitive environments.
Hartnett herself seemed to struggle with hypothetical scenarios, like Alito’s question about a boy identifying as a girl without medical interventions competing on a girls’ team. Her response avoided directly tackling the scenario, suggesting it wasn’t central to her argument. That evasion only muddies the waters further on where the legal boundaries should lie.
At its heart, Little v. Hecox tests whether laws like Idaho’s create an equal protection problem by using biological classifications. Hartnett insisted her side accepts the statute’s definitions as written but questions their broader implications. It’s a nuanced position, but one that risks sounding like a contradiction when pressed.
Defenders of the ban aren’t just fighting for tradition—they’re pointing to real-world outcomes like safety and equity in sports. Allowing biological males to compete in women’s categories, they argue, could undermine decades of progress in giving female athletes a level playing field.
On the flip side, the plaintiff’s case tugs at fairness in a different way, highlighting how rigid policies can exclude individuals who pose no competitive threat. Yet, without clear definitions or guidelines, courts are left grappling with subjective calls that could swing wildly, case by case.
Alito’s line of questioning cuts to a deeper problem: modern policies often leap ahead of foundational clarity. If society can’t agree on what “man” or “woman” means in legal terms, how can laws be crafted or judged effectively? This isn’t just academic—it’s the bedrock of resolving disputes like this one.
The outcome of Little v. Hecox could set a precedent for how states handle transgender participation in sports, a flashpoint in the broader cultural debate over gender identity. While empathy for individual stories matters, so does the need to protect the integrity of women’s sports from unintended consequences.
Until the Supreme Court delivers a ruling, the tension between personal identity and competitive fairness will keep simmering. Idaho’s law, and others like it, might be imperfect, but they’re wrestling with a problem that progressive policies often ignore: biology isn’t just a social construct in a race or on a field. The justices have their work cut out for them in finding a balance that respects both reality and rights.