In last week’s article, we reviewed a Supreme Court case called Little v Hecox in which the Supreme Court will reverse a Ninth Circuit decision that falsely claimed that the Trans Drug Cult was a protected class. In this week’s article, we will review another Supreme Court case called Chiles v Salazar in which the Supreme Court will reverse a Colorado court decision that the Trans Drug Cult can ban child counselors from telling children the truth about the dangers of Trans Drugs. A hearing on the Chiles case was heard by the Supreme Court on October 7, 2025 and the questions asked by the Justices made it clear that the majority will rule that preventing counselors from telling kids the truth about Trans Drugs is a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The significance of this case here in Washington state is that in reversing Chiles v Salazar, the Supreme Court will also reverse an identical Ninth Circuit case called Tingley v Ferguson. The reversal of Tingley v Ferguson will finally expose our Governor Bob Ferguson as a con artist, a liar, and a crook who disregards our First Amendment Rights in order to promote and protect his Trans Drug Cult accomplices. It will also open the door to finally telling children and parents here in Washington state the truth about drawbacks of the Trans Drug Cult – putting the final nail in the Trans Drug coffin.

Background of Tingley v Ferguson

In 2018, the Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 5722 – a new law that banned counselors from telling gender confused children the truth about the dangers of Trans Drugs. As insane as it sounds, Senate Bill 5722 requires licensed counselors in Washington to promote state-sponsored child abuse and life long drug addiction by encouraging gender confused children to take toxic Trans drugs.

This crazy law is an attack on our free speech rights under the First Amendment. It is also an attack on the scientific method as science requires the ability to consider all points of view – and not be limited to only the official dogma. Finally, this new law is an attack on at-risk children – because it forces children to go down a deadly drug addiction path and prevents them from having access to counseling that might help them overcome their mental health problems. Any counselor that has the courage to tell children and their parents the truth about Trans Drugs can be subjected to a fine of $5,000 and lose their Counselors license.

Since 2018, Bob Ferguson and his accomplices in the Teachers Union and the legacy media have been telling several Big Lies – including his claim that kids will commit suicide if they are not encouraged to take Trans Drugs. In fact, study after study has shown that giving kids drugs instead of counseling increases their risk of suicide. The driving force behind this law is not a concern for gender confused kids - but the extreme greed of drug corporations that is making billions of dollars in profits by getting vulnerable children addicted to toxic Trans drugs.

Brian Tingley is a a licensed marriage and family counselor in Washington state who challenged the Constitutionality of Senate Bill 5722 as a violation of his First Amendment right to speak the truth to children and their parents.

The crazy Ninth Circuit agreed with Ferguson and in 2023 Tingley appealed the Ninth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court. While most of the Supreme Court justices were fooled by Ferguson’s false claim about kids killing themselves if they do not get Trans Drugs, two justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, were not fooled and would have granted the appeal. Thomas authored a 6 page dissent you can read at this link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-942_kh6o.pdf

Here are quotes from his Dissent: “This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last…We warned that “regulating the content of professionals’ speech ‘poses the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information… Under SB 5722, licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment... Although the Court declines to take this particular case, I have no doubt that the issue it presents will come before the Court again. When it does, the Court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires.”

2025 US Supreme Court learns the Truth about the Trans Drug Cult
In 2019, the Crazy Cult in Colorado passed a Child Counseling ban similar to the Washington state 2018 ban. This Colorado ban was challenged in the case called Chiles v Salazar. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, brought a federal civil rights challenge to the law, arguing that it violates both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment because it interferes with her ability to communicate with her clients.

The district court denied her request for a preliminary injunction and by a divided vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed. Judge Harris Hartz dissented, citing Supreme Court precedent recognizing that “speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals.”

On November 8, 2024, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of Chiles, appealed the 10th Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court. A dozen pro-freedom groups filed Amicus briefs in support of Chiles. Links to all of these briefs can be found at this link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-539.html

The good news is that, in March 2025, the US Supreme Court accepted this case and held a hearing on this case on October 7, 2025. It is likely that their decision will be in favor of Chiles and will be issued in Spring 2026. Their decision will finally overturn the 9th Circuit decision in Tingley v Ferguson – allowing us to repeal 2018 Senate Bill 5722 as part of our Family Rights Initiative we will be submitting in 2028.

Here we will briefly quote from the Chiles Petition to the US Supreme Court as well as some of the Amicus briefs to see why the US Supreme Court changed their mind – and to provide us with facts to help change the minds of Independent voters in the 2028 election here in Washington state. Here is a link to the Chiles Petition to the Supreme Court:

The Petition is 280 pages long. But only the first 44 pages are the Petition. Here are a couple of important quotes:

“An independent policy review commissioned by the English National Health Service noted the urgent and unmet need for mental health services to support “gender-questioning young people.” The Cass Review, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children (Apr. 2024). “

“The Cass Review linked this shortage to restrictions like Colorado’s. Such restrictions have “left some clinical staff fearful” of “providing professional support” to young people at all. That result leaves detransitioners— those who adopted a transgender identity but now identify with their biological sex—with no counseling support whatsoever in much of the United States.”

“By upholding counseling censorship, the Tenth Circuit’s ruling here and the Ninth Circuit’s in Tingley tell countless minors they have no choice but to medically transition (aka take Trans Drugs).

“Recent studies show that those who desire harmony with their bodies and seek counseling find “significant improvement” with depression, anxiety, and suicidality and experience no “adverse or negative effects.” Cass Review at 153. “

On December 9, 2024 the Ethics and Policy Center filed a 31 page brief supporting Chiles at this link. This brief provides links to some of the latest research on the drawbacks of giving kids toxic Trans Drugs. Here are a couple of quotes:

“The numbers of minors identifying as transgender and seeking hormonal and surgical body modifications has increased exponentially.”

“Since 2021, 26 states have examined the evidence for youth gender affirmation and responded by passing laws restricting or banning most gender transition interventions for minors.”

A person’s sex is imprinted in every cell of the person’s body and cannot change. Feelings cannot override or erase this truth. When an adolescent seeks affirmation of an identity at odds with reality, the therapist has an ethical duty to speak the truth, not to validate the minor’s false self-perception. It is profoundly unethical to reinforce a male child’s belief that he is not a boy, or that he “is” or can “become” a female. It is similarly unethical for a therapist to tell a female patient that her self-perception that she “is” a boy overrides the reality of her female-sexed body.”

“Decades of research show that nearly all (88%) children who express a transgender identity or exhibit identity distress typically “desist,” resolving those feelings before puberty.”

“The U.S. gender industry is at the center of a growing “medical scandal,” writes journalist Lisa Selin Davis. Evidence of suppressed research, political manipulation, misleading the public, and unethical experimentation on minors has surfaced in recent months, partly in the context of litigation. As these developments make clear, a counselor’s ability to speak freely, provide information, and respond to her client’s wishes is an ethical priority.”

“Kozlowska concluded that 87.7% of children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria had comorbid psychiatric diagnoses. “

On December 13, 2024, 11 more briefs were filed supporting Chiles. The first was Erin Lee who represented a group of parents who wanted counseling for their children in Colorado but was unable to get counseling due to counselors fearing the Colorado Child Counseling ban. The parents said the lack of counseling severely harmed their kids.

The second brief was from a Christian Medical Association representing 30,000 medical professionals. Here are quotes from this brief:

“Gender transition procedures (GTPs) imperil already at-risk gender dysphoric youth with experimental and unproven hormonal and surgical gender procedures, which medicalize prematurely and permanently. Bans on comprehensive counseling regarding GTPs—such as the ban at issue in this case—contradict the spirit of science and the scientific enterprise and run squarely against evidence-based healthcare, client autonomy, free speech, and the counselor-client relationship.”

“Cross-sex hormones bring a host of risks and adverse health effects. For example, when introduced into a healthy biological male, estrogen significantly increases the risks of blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer, insulin resistance, and more—and these risks increase with length of use. Similarly, testosterone use in females significantly increases the risks of heart attacks, strokes, breast and uterine cancer, hypertension, severe acne, and more.” Nash R. Getahun, et al., Cross-sex Hormones and Acute Cardiovascular Events in Transgender Persons: A Cohort Study, Ann. Intern. Med. (2018), 169(4): 205-13. doi: 10.7326/M17-2785

“Among individuals who undergo full transition, the suicide rate significantly increases—not decreases.” Cecilia Dhejne, et al., Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden, PLOS ONE (Feb. 22, 2011)

“Thousands of individual transitioners regret their transition and are now attempting to de-transition. For example, in late 2017, the subreddit r/detrans (r/detrans, 2020) was revitalized, and in four years, grew from 100 members to more than 46,000 members. Littman (2021) supra. Many of these men and women who transitioned as children are speaking out publicly about the irreversible harm GTPs caused them, demonstrating that some effects of GTPs are permanent.”

Another amicus brief was from the state of Iowa and 11 other states including Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Here is a quote: “The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty—and thus a good unto itself—but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.”

Another amicus brief was from Changed Movement which is an organization of detransitioners. Here are quotes from their brief:

“CHANGED Movement is a community of friends who once identified as LGBTQ+ and exchanged that identity for a Christian worldview.”

“This case vividly illustrates the profound public harms that result when the government makes itself the arbiter of a perceived truth that ought to be discussed and debated by the people.”

“Through counseling, Daniel says that “God began to work in my heart in unexpected ways” and “I found myself increasingly aligned with what I believe to be God’s design for sexuality and marriage.” As a result, he is now happily married to “my wonderful wife” and has found marriage “more of a blessing than I could have imagined.” Like many other members of the CHANGED Movement community who have had similar experiences, Daniel believes that “change is possible when approached with the right support system that honors both the individual’s struggles and their faith convictions.” See, e.g., Lisa Littman, Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners (2021)

The final 20 page Chiles brief was submitted on January 15 2025. Here are some important quotes:

“Amidst a nationwide mental-health crisis, many minors struggling with gender dysphoria are seeking the counseling that Kaley Chiles would like to provide. They want help aligning their mind and body rather than chasing experimental medical interventions and risking permanent harm. Yet it is this desperately needed counseling—encouraging words between a licensed counselor and a consenting minor client—that Colorado forbids with its viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction.”

“In the south and northeast, conversations between counselors and clients are constitutionally protected; but in western states, counselors can be silenced and vulnerable minors deprived of urgently needed counseling.”

“They disregard recent studies showing that children with gender dysphoria who seek harmony with their bodies and desire counseling find “significant improvement” with depression, anxiety, and suicidality and experience no “adverse or negative effects.” Cass Review at 153.

“There is a fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria... Colorado has taken a side in this debate and, with a lack of evidence, silenced the other…Every day the Tenth Circuit’s decision remains in place, it denies urgently needed counseling to vulnerable minors. There is no time to lose.”

Supreme Court Hearing Exposes the Lies of the Trans Drug Cult
On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Chiles v Salazar. Here is a link to the transcript of this hearing.

Here are quotes from this transcript:

On Page 31, the attorney for Chiles stated: Colorado knew that was our position and they had an opportunity to make their record. But the evidence that they submitted and the expert materials undermine their case.

The expert materials admit that they don't have any study addressing precisely what's at issue -- or specifically focusing on precisely what's at issue here, which is voluntary conversations between a licensed professional and a minor. Their -- their expert materials also recognize that they cannot prove harm. We've cataloged all the places in their expert materials on page 22 of our reply brief where they concede that.

And, lastly, their own expert materials recognize that many people have experienced life-changing benefits from this kind of counseling… Colorado certainly cites studies, but those studies suffer from significant flaws. The main flaw in all of them is that they lump together dissimilar approaches. They treat voluntary conversations the same as shock therapy.

On Page 60, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS stated: “Just because they're engaged in conduct doesn't mean that their words aren't protected.”

Justice Samuel Alito stated: “Suppose an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he attracted -- he's attracted to other males but feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings, and he wants to end or lessen them and asks for the therapist's help in doing so. Under your interpretation of the statute, is that banned...”

“In the first situation, an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he's attracted to other males, but he feels uneasy and guilty with those feelings, he wants to end or lessen them, and he asks for the therapist's help in doing so. The other situation is a similar adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist, says he's attracted to other males, feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings, and he wants the therapist's help so he will feel comfortable as a gay young man.

It seems to me you're interpret -- your statute dictates opposite results in those two situations based on the view -- based on the viewpoint expressed. One viewpoint is the viewpoint that a minor should be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction if that's what he -- or he or she wants. And the other is the viewpoint that the minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction even if that is what he or she wants. Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Regarding the blatant viewpoint discrimination, the attorney for Chiles stated: “This law's viewpoint discrimination is even worse than we've heard so far this morning because the State of Colorado would allow a 12-year-old without their parents' consent to enter into counseling that would go the opposite way on these issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. But, if that same 12-year-old with their parents' consent want to seek counseling in the opposite direction, the kind that my client would provide, they are not able to do that. This law harms gender-dysphoric kids because the statistics that we've cited in our verified complaint, as well as in the brief that we cited with this Court, indicate that 90 percent of young people who are struggling with gender dysphoria before puberty work their way through it and realign their identity with their sex, but if one of those children go to a counselor and they specifically say that is the help I want, realigning my identity with their sex, they cannot receive that help from someone like my client.”

Trans Drug Cult Junk Science exposed
During the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly asked the Colorado attorney for evidence on how child counseling practices were harmful to gender confused children. Here is one exchange:

JUSTICE BARRETT: What is your best evidence on this record, that this kind of talk therapy by a licensed professional, licensed therapist, to minors causes harm?

MS. STEVENSON: I would direct you specifically to the Green study and the Turban study.

The attorney for Chiles then stated:

“On the issue of studies, there was a reference to the Green and Turban studies. All of those studies relied on biased sampling, self-reporting. They conflated aversive techniques with voluntary counseling. They did not isolate licensed counselors. And they did not purport even in their own study to prove causation.”

Note: The 2015 Turban “study” and the 2018 Green “study” were nothing more than junk science. They both were based on extremely unreliable online surveys which consisted of such unreliable responses that most of them were rejected – leading to a highly cherry picked data set. Equally bad, the questions were leading questions that failed to determine the time order of events. For example, while both studies found a correlation between kids who were suicidal and got counseling, neither study bothered to determine whether the kids were suicidal first – causing their parents to get them counseling – or got counseling first – causing them to be suicidal. Subsequent studies have determined that what happens first is that kids suffer from mental health problems, such as Depression, which causes their parents to get counseling for them. In other words, when the time order of events is taken into account, it becomes obvious that counseling does not cause suicidal behavior. Rather it is suicidal behavior that leads to counseling.

In an Amicus brief filed by Washington AG Nick Brown, he also cited the Green and Turban junk science studies as “evidence” that kids should be given toxic Trans Drugs instead of counseling. Therefore, in a separate article, we will review the massive problems with these two studies and compare them to real science studies.

It is time to expose the Trans Cult lies to our kids and parents. We need to work hard to organize parents, grandparents and other concerned citizens. The US Supreme Court can and will help us by overturning Tingley v Ferguson in 2026. But we also need to do our part. Ferguson and Reykdal are both currently ignoring the 2023 US Supreme Court decision in Students v Harvard and the 2024 US Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v Cardona. They are also likely to ignore the coming Supreme Court decision in Chiles v Salazar. Our plan is to submit a comprehensive Family Rights Initiative to the People in 2028 that among many other goals, restores the right of gender confused kids to the child counseling they urgently need. You can help by joining our Washington Family Rights Coalition and sharing this article and the rest of our website articles with your friends and neighbors.

As always, we look forward to your questions and comments.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Washington Family Rights Coalition

In February 2025, the Washington Parents Network filed a 99 page complaint against Chris Reykdal and Bob Ferguson for violating the Title IX Rights of girls in our state to their own bathrooms, locker rooms and sports leagues. At the time, we cautioned that it might take years for this issue to be resolved by federal courts. This was because Washington state is located in the Ninth Circuit – a crazy group of radical judges that, in a case called Little v Hecox, ruled against a 2020 Idaho law which was intended to protect girls rights. The good news is that the US Supreme Court will review Little v Hecox this fall and likely issue a ruling overturning the Ninth Circuit decision in Hecox by the Spring of 2026. In this article, we will explain why this coming decision could restore Girls Rights here in Washington state as soon as the summer of 2026.

How the Supreme Court overturning Little V Hecox will restore girls rights in months instead of years
In May 2025, the US Department of Justice announced that they would investigate our Title IX complaint along with the complaints of several “rebel” school districts and hold Reykdal accountable for violating federal civil rights laws like Title IX. But because there are about 20 states violating Title IX, the Washington investigation will not be possible until we have a new US attorney approved by the US Senate. The Trump administration has nominated Pete Serrano to be one of US attorneys. But his appointment has been held up in the Senate by Patty Murray. Recently, the Senate rules were changed to permit some nominees, including US Attorneys, to be approved by a simple majority vote. It is therefore likely that Serrano will be approved by the end of this year.

Pete will then need to replace the previous Pro-Biden, Pro-WOKE attorneys currently in the Washington Branch of the US Department of Justice with Pro-Constitution attorneys more willing to enforce federal civil rights laws like Title IX. This new staff will likely conduct an investigation of Reykdal and his accomplices in the Spring of 2026. This will lead to charges being filed against Reykdal in the Ninth Circuit federal court by the end of May 2026. But without a decision from the Supreme Court overturning Little V Hecox, the federal district court judge is certain to delay the case as long as possible and then after a few months, use Little V Hecox to decide in favor of Reykdal.

Serrano will then be forced to appeal this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where a three judge panel will likely delay a decision for a few more months before using Little v Hecox to confirm the district court ruling. Serrano will then finally be able to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court – where it will again take several months to be “accepted for review” and put on their docket. Months after that, there will be oral arguments and months after that, the Supreme Court will overturn the Ninth Circuit – which will then take months to reverse the lower court decision – and months more for a final judgment in favor of Serrano – which will then finally restore our Girls Title IX rights here in Washington state – likely sometime in 2029 or even later.

However, if the US Supreme Court issues an opinion reversing Little v Hecox by Spring 2026, a far different set of events will occur. Assuming charges are filed against Reykdal in the Ninth Circuit federal court by the end of May 2026, the district judge will be forced to immediately comply with the US Supreme Court decision and grant summary judgment to Serrano within a couple of months. The judge will order Reykdal to immediately comply with the plain meaning of Title IX - and the 9 year nightmare our girls have been enduring will finally be over.

How reversing Little V Hecox will expose Reykdal
Equally important, Reykdal will finally be exposed as the fraudulent con artist that he is. The Ninth Circuit decision in Little v Hecox was based on the claim, often repeated by Reykdal, that Trans Drug Cult victims were somehow a “protected class” under the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. In fact, there are only three groups of people protected by the 14^th Amendment. First, a person can not be discriminated against based on the color of their skin. Second, a person can not be discriminated against based on their country of origin. For example, we are not allowed to discriminate against someone because their parents are Irish. Third, we are not allowed to discriminate against someone because they are women. Those are the ONLY protected classes recognized by the US Supreme Court. All three protected classes apply to people with definite characteristics they are born with and can not possibly change.

Sadly, in the case of Little v Hecox, the Ninth Circuit improperly created a new protected class for Trans Drug Cult victims, like Hecox. But the reason Trans victims are not a protected class is that no one can become a protected class simply by changing their names and pronouns. If this were the case, then any of us could be a protected class and the term would lose its meaning. For example, a man could simply say he is a woman and suddenly he would be protected since he is now a woman.

In reversing Little v Hecox, the Supreme Court will be ending the insanity of Trans Drug victims as a protected class and thereby restoring the Title IX rights of actual girls and women.

History of Little v Hecox
Before we cover the legal arguments presented to the US Supreme Court by Idaho and others, we will review the history of this case. In 2020, Idaho enacted its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act to protect equal opportunities for female athletes by providing that female sports “shall not be open to students of the male sex.” Idaho Code § 33-6203(2). A biological male pretending to be a woman named Hecox testified against this Act, calling it “blatantly transphobic and discriminatory towards trans women.”

Sixteen days after the Act became law, Hecox sued in an Idaho federal district court to invalidate it claiming that it violated his “Equal Protection” rights under the 14^th Amendment. At the time, Hecox was a freshman at Boise State University. As a male who identifies as female, Hecox claimed that he wanted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams the following school year.

Hecox prevailed in the Idaho district court which granted him an injunction against the Act. On appeal, however, it was revealed that Hecox had tried out for the women’s track team in the fall of 2020 - but did not make the team. Hecox then took a temporary leave of absence from BSU.

This should have made the case moot and thereby allowed the law to take effect. However, at oral argument in May 2021, Hecox’s lawyer confirmed Hecox “took a leave of absence after not making the team” but was “training to go back” and “return to school in the fall of 2021 and try out again.” Thus Hecox wanted the injunction against the Idaho law to continue even though he had not been personally harmed by it.

After argument, Hecox submitted a declaration changing the timeline: actually, Hecox now intended to re-enroll “in January 2022” and “again try out for track and cross-country once I am back in school.”Hecox re-enrolled in January, but the tryout was further delayed. On remand to determine whether the case was moot, Hecox again changed his story, this time saying his new plan was to try “out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at the next available opportunity, in Fall 2022.”

In the meantime, to keep his case from being moot, Hecox decided to “join the women’s club soccer team.” Hecox had “reviewed the … women’s club soccer team’s web page,” emailed the team president, and learned the “only requirement to play was paying $275 in dues per semester.” There was no try out or skill required to make this recreational team.

Ultimately, Hecox did play women’s club soccer in the spring of 2022. And that kept the case from becoming moot. However, Hecox did not try out for the BSU track and cross-country in 2022 as promised. Hecox claimed that he had contracted COVID-19 in the summer of 2022, and between that and “other stressors,” Hecox thought it would be “unwise to try out.”

In the fall of 2023, Hecox finally tried out again for women’s track team. Again, Hecox “did not make the team.” But Hecox was still playing women’s club soccer, which “does not require try-outs.” In lieu of running, Hecox kept playing women’s recreational club soccer, which Hecox intended to play “through the remainder” of Hecox’s “time at BSU.” For a second time, that was enough to prevent the case from becoming moot.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the District court decision, barring Idaho from enforcing the Act “in its entirety” against anyone. However, in Spring 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Labrador v. Poe, that universal injunctions should be avoided. Based on this decision, the Ninth Circuit amended its prior opinion and remanded the case back to the Idaho district court to reevaluate the scope of its injunction.

The district court narrowed its injunction and granted the parties’ (Little who is the Governor of California and Hecox) joint request for a stay of all legal proceedings pending an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court in summer 2024.

Importantly, Hecox did not say anything during the summer of 2024 about potentially withdrawing from women’s sports at BSU. Instead, in his legal filings, Hecox stated that he was “playing women’s club soccer and running” in what was supposed to be his “final year of college.

Also important is the fact that in August 2024, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Tennessee v Cardona that Title IV prohibited biological males from invading girls private spaces or playing on girls sports teams. Sadly, the August 2024 decision did not address the Ninth Circuit decision that Trans Drug victims were a “protected class.”

Once again, the plans of Hecox changed, and the 2024-2025 school year was not Hecox’s final year after all. At no point did Hecox warn the Court of any chance he might stop playing women’s sports before graduating. Instead, Hecox waited until after the US Supreme Court had granted the petition in July 2025 before filing a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Idaho district court on September 3, 2025, claiming he no longer wanted to participate in girls sports and therefore that the case was now moot.

In their legal filings, Idaho objected that that Hecox had agreed to the stay of all legal proceedings and therefore waived the right to file a voluntary dismissal while this case was stayed. They note that Hecox only changed his mind about the case after the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Skrmetti, (the case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tennessee ban against the Trans Drug Cult. )

Idaho also pointed out that the Ninth Circuit has used Little v Hecox many times to claim that the Trans Drug Cult was a protected class in other rulings including Roe v. Critchfield and Doe v. Horne - concluding that Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment. For all of these reasons, it is likely that the US Supreme Court will reject Hecox desire to moot the case and instead make a ruling on the case in Spring of 2026.

Idaho’s Legal argument explaining why Transgenderism can not possibly be a protected class

On September 12, 2025, Idaho submitted its 68 page legal brief to the US Supreme Court. Here are a few quotes from their brief:

“The Ninth Circuit entered its amended judgment on June 14, 2024, nearly four years after the district court enjoined Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. The Equal Protection Clause states, “Nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“This case presents a simple question: Does the Equal Protection Clause allow states to protect fairness and safety by reserving women’s sports for females? Common sense says yes. The Ninth Circuit said no, holding that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act unlawfully discriminates based on sex and transgender status.”

“That decision distorts the law and the science. The Equal Protection Clause allows sex-based classifications if they are substantially related to achieving important government interests. Idaho’s statute easily clears that hurdle. On average, men are faster, stronger, bigger, more muscular, and have more explosive power than women. For female athletes to compete safely and excel, they deserve sex-specific teams. Even Respondent Hecox wants women’s teams to exist; Hecox just wants to redefine “women” based on gender identity rather than biology. But in sports, biology matters, not gender identity. So Idaho’s sex-based line is correct and constitutional.”

“The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Although the Act does not classify based on gender identity, the Ninth Circuit adopted Hecox’s redefinition of sex and held that the sex-based distinction in Idaho’s law inflicts “proxy discrimination” against those who identify as transgender. The Ninth Circuit held that transgender status is a quasi-suspect class.”

“The Act’s use of a biological definition of sex does not constitute proxy discrimination against people who identify as transgender, nor does gender identity qualify as a quasi-suspect class; people whose gender identity differs from their sex are not a discrete group composed of individuals with an obvious and immutable characteristic akin to race or sex. “

“The Act advances Idaho’s goals because males have long-lasting physiological advantages that persist after hormone suppression, affecting their speed, strength, and endurance in ways that compromise the fairness and safety of female athletic competitions.”

“The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid laws that recognize real, relevant biological differences between the sexes, and it does not define sex based on gender identity. “

“The law reflects a legitimate, evidence-based judgment about how to protect equal opportunities for female athletes. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary view transforms equal protection from a shield against unjust discrimination into a sword that harms women and girls and imperils the future of women’s sports. “

“With increasing frequency, female athletes have been sidelined from their own teams, championship competitions, and winners’ podiums. That is why the NCAA and U.S. Olympic Committee recently changed their policies to mirror those of Idaho and the 26 other states that have enacted similar laws. The Constitution permits what this trend recognizes: female athletes deserve the chance to compete and win in their own sports.”

“A recent United Nations report summed it up: as of August 2024, “over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports” to “males who identify as women.”

“Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males, as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball, basketball and soccer. Injuries have included knocked-out teeth, concussions resulting in neural impairment, broken legs and skull fractures. “

“The knowledge of female athletes that they may be competing against males included in female sports, including males that identify as females or males with specific XY differences in sex development, causes extreme psychological distress due to the physical disadvantage, the loss of opportunity for fair competition and of educational and economic opportunities and the violation of their privacy in locker rooms and other intimate spaces.”

“State officials may at times be directly responsible for acts of violence against women and girls in sport. A State can be considered complicit in and responsible for the violation of human rights by neglecting to prevent such violations. Accordingly, a State should be held responsible if it fails to prevent, prosecute, and/or sanction such acts.”

“Even before puberty, boys have athletic advantages when compared to girls of similar ages and training. Scientific research and real-world examples of physical fitness and sports performance indicate that boys run faster, jump further, swim faster, and throw further than same-aged girls even before the onset of puberty.”

“Consider 9- to 10-year-old boys and girls. At the 50th percentile, average boys complete 15% more sit-ups in 60 seconds than girls, perform a 30-foot shuttle run 5% faster than girls, achieve 5.4% longer distances in the standing long jump, run a 50-yard dash 5% faster, complete a 600-yard run 13% faster, and run 13.4% farther in a 9-minute run. On average, boys have more lean mass, a higher maximal oxygen consumption, and larger heart volumes, among other things. By age six, boys even have stronger bones than girls.”

“Puberty blockers do not erase male advantages. In one study, two years of puberty blockers followed by six years of cross-sex hormones for males “increased body fat” but “did not eliminate the sex-based differences in lean body mass.” In yet another, males who took puberty blockers “experienced 32% greater increases in strength than would be expected for similarly aged females.”

“Equal Protection Clause court rulings protects “sex” as an objective trait rooted in biology—not a subjective concept based on gender identity.”

“Sex is binary, objective, and defined by inherent and unalterable characteristics in male and female genetics; every cell of the body is coded with sex chromosomes that drive physical and physiological differences between males and females Consistent with science, this Court has recognized “sex” as an objective characteristic that is a fundamentally “distinct concept” from an individual’s subjective “gender identity”

Despite this overwhelming evidence and precedent supporting an objective understanding of “sex,” the Ninth Circuit conflated the term with “gender identity” as the foundation for its equal-protection analysis. “

“The class of those who identify as transgender is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class… Individuals who identify as a gender different from their sex are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Historically, this Court has limited that review to a narrow set of classifications, those “based on race, sex, and alienage. In fact, the list of protected classes has remained “virtually closed” for nearly 50 years as the Court “has repeatedly declined” to add to it.”

“Recognizing a protected class requires the group to “exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group” that, “as a historical matter, has been subjected to discrimination”

“Those elements are lacking here. First, the proposed class is not immutable. Suspect-class treatment flows only to groups whose membership is “defined by a trait that is definitively ascertainable at the moment of birth...”

Brief of United States Department of Justice
On September 19, 2025, the US Department of Justice filed a 42 page brief in this case. Here are some quotes from their brief:

“The questions presented are these:

1. Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids schools from placing trans-identifying athletes on sex-separated sports teams based on their biological sex.

2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids schools from placing trans-identifying athletes on sex-separated sports teams based on their biological sex.”

“The United States is responsible for enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The United States also has authority to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Constitution. Amendment XIV, § 1, in the public-school context and may intervene in cases of general importance involving alleged denials of equal protection.”

“This is a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth. The participation of male trans-identifying athletes in female sports “is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”

“27 States, including West Virginia and Idaho, have adopted laws or regulations providing that men may not participate in women’s sports. “

“Sex-separated athletics are consistent with Title IX’s text, history, and purpose. The ordinary meaning of “sex” as used in Title IX refers to the binary biological difference between males and females. And the ordinary meaning of “discrimination” as used in Title IX is treating members of one sex worse than similarly situated members of the other sex. Forcing females to compete against males would contravene Title IX’s purpose of expanding athletic opportunities for women and girls.”

“The Equal Protection Clause does not require special exemptions for trans-identifying athletes any more than Title IX does. To the contrary, it is even more obvious that the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate such preferential treatment. When placing students on sex-separated sports teams engaged in athletic competition, what matters is biology, not gender identity.”

“These advantages are seen, among other places, in the results of the Presidential Fitness Test widely used in American schools, in which “boys outperform girls” at ages as young as six. “

“Title IX Does Not Require A Special Exemption Allowing Trans-Identifying Students To Compete On Opposite-Sex Teams”

“Regardless of whether trans-identifying athletes identify with the opposite sex, they possess the biology of their own sex. A school thus may bar males who are trans-identifying from competing on female sports teams for the same reason that it may bar non-trans-identifying males from doing so: They have a competitive advantage in strength and speed over females due to their physiological differences.”

“This Court’s precedent instructs that the Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” The Clause is therefore not violated by classifications that treat men and women differently where the two sexes “are not similarly situated,” such as measures that “take into account a biological difference.”

The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Require A Special Exemption Allowing Trans-Identifying Students To Compete On Opposite-Sex Teams

Brief of American College of Pediatricians
On September 19, 2025, the American College of Pediatricians filed a 43 page brief on this case. Their brief is important because they provide data confirming that it is not possible to change a person’s biological sex. Here are quotes from their brief:

“The courts mistakenly reduced the male athletic advantage to a single variable: pubertal (or circulating) testosterone, as if pubertal testosterone determines whether the individual is male or female. But that view ignores a host of other biological differences that shape athletic performance and do not depend on pubertal testosterone. Long before puberty, male genetics result in sex differences such as bone shape and lung volume. These features translate into superior oxygen transport, stronger muscle contraction, and greater torque in explosive movements. They are written into the male body at every stage of development, even before birth, and cannot be erased by suppressing hormones during adolescence.”

“Both courts below adopted the misleading terminology that sex is “assigned at birth,” rather than rooted in biological reality, observed and announced. People are not assigned a sex; they have one, and that biological reality creates real athletic advantages between the sexes.”

“Transitioning” to a different sex is biologically impossible. From a purely scientific standpoint, human beings possess a biologically determined sex and innate sex differences. No sexologist could actually change a person’s genes through hormones and surgery.”

“The medical record shows that sex-linked genetic programming produces significant differences between boys and girls well before puberty, independent of testosterone exposure. Genes found on sex hormones—not testosterone — primarily drive the differences between males and females. Many of these differences do not arise from hormonal exposure at all, but are a “direct result of the genetic differences between the two sexes. There are at least 6,500 shared genes that are expressed differently in males and females.”

“Utilizing the runnercard.com website, they evaluated the running velocities and participation for 3,621 children and found that male children were faster than female children at every grade level, with an average difference of 7.7%.”

Brief of Do No Harm
On September 19, 2025, an international group of doctors, called Do No Harm filed a 36 page brief. Their brief is important because they provided evidence that Transgenderism is not related to a rare genetic disorder called Intersex. Here are quotes from their brief:

“Do No Harm, Inc., is a nonprofit membership organization that includes over 27,000 physicians, nurses, medical students, patients, and policymakers. Do No Harm is committed to ensuring that the practice of medicine is driven by scientific evidence rather than ideology. In recent years, the practice of biology denying interventions, euphemistically known as “gender affirming care,” has become more common despite the serious harm caused by those medical interventions and the complete lack of reliable evidence for any benefit resulting from them.”

“Do No Harm has developed a database demonstrating that nearly 14,000 minors were subject to biology-denying interventions in the United States between 2019 and 2023. “

“Prior courts mistakenly conflated “intersex conditions” — which are extremely rare biological disorders of sexual development—with a form of “transgender identity. Sex Is Biological and Binary. Sex is a biological classification that is “encoded in our DNA. Sexual traits are “controlled by the presence of XX or XY chromosomes. Intersex conditions—more properly termed “disorders of sexual development”— are biological conditions of atypical sexual development. Like typical sexual development, disorders of sexual development are determined based on an assessment of biology— generally, chromosomes, gonads, and anatomy. Disorders of sexual development are incredibly rare. Although the diverse nature of DSD makes precise quantification difficult, the number of individuals who experience a disorder of sexual development “has been estimated to be approximately 1 in 4,500– 5,500”—roughly two-hundredths of one percent (00.02%). See Lee, supra, at 159 Peter A. Lee et al., Global Disorders of Sex Development Update Since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care, 85 HORMONE RSCH . IN P AEDIATRICS 158, 159 (Jan. 28, 2016), https://perma.cc/CP72-X8TC.”

“Biology Denying Interventions Are Known To Cause a Growing List of Serious Harms.”

“The Combination of These Interventions Sterilizes Minors. For males, the use of cross-sex hormones is associated with numerous health risks, such as thromboembolic disease, including blood clots; gallstones; coronary artery disease, including heart attacks; tumors of the pituitary gland; strokes; elevated levels of triglycerides in the blood; infertility; and breast cancer.”

“For females, the use of cross-sex hormones is associated with risks of severe liver dysfunction; heart attacks; hypertension; infertility; and increased risk of breast, cervical, and uterine cancers.”

“Taking these drugs will become a “life-long” commitment because a patient must continually take the hormones to maintain the physical changes they cause.”

“No Reliable Evidence Establishes the Psychological Benefit of Using These Interventions . There is no evidence that” biology denying interventions reduce “deaths by suicide in trans people.”

“The Cass Review found “only two moderate quality studies” that “looked at gender dysphoria and body satisfaction,” and “neither reported any change before or after receiving puberty suppression.”

“A researcher in the U.K. concluded that there was no evidence of a rise in suicides after the country’s health service had restricted the use of puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria. “The evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.” See Puberty Blocker Curb Has Not Led to Suicide Rise—Review, BBC (July 20, 2024), https://perma.cc/XRX8-4953. “

“The Ninth Circuit decision below badly misunderstood disorders of sexual development. First, the Ninth Circuit inexplicably said “two percent of the population are born ‘intersex.’” That number is off by two orders of magnitude. The correct estimate is roughly .02%).”

Conclusion
The case summary for legal filings is available at this link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-38.html

There have already been a couple dozen briefs submitted in this case and there will likely be many more before oral arguments are heard this fall. Given that the US Supreme Court has already ruled in August, 2024 that Title IX prohibits boys from entering girls private spaces or playing in girls sports, it is certain that they will rule against the Ninth Circuit in the next few months. This ruling will be the final nail in the Trans Drug Cult coffin here in Washington state – and will finally restore the Title IX civil right of our girls to their own bathrooms, locker rooms and sports leagues.

On July 9, 2025, one of the most significant events in US history occurred. It was an event with huge consequences for families here in Washington state – families whose children are being lied to, brainwashed and manipulated by the Trans Drug Cult in schools all across our state. Yet this remarkable event was barely mentioned by the lying legacy media. The event was a Federal Trade Commission (aka FTC) 8 hour “workshop” on the dangers of “Gender Affirming Care” for minors.

The term “gender affirming care” is extremely misleading because it actually means getting millions of kids in the US addicted to toxic Trans Drugs and then permanently sterilizing them by mutilating their body parts – all to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits for the Trans Drug Cult – money stolen from us tax payers (as all of us are paying for this insanity through skyrocketing taxes and health insurance premiums). The FTC focused on the crimes being committed by the Trans Drug Cult against the children and parents whose lives were being destroyed by the lies (aka “fraudulent health claims”) of the Trans Drug Cult.

At the end of the workshop, the FTC announced that they intend to bring both civil and criminal charges against those responsible for using lies to harm children. In short, the FTC intends to blow the lid off the Trans Drug Cult. In this article, we will summarize some of the crimes exposed by the FTC workshop – and what you can do to make sure that more people in our state find out about it.

Here is a link to an article about the FTC workshop posted on July 12^th:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ftc-hosts-day-long-workshop-on-harms-of-gender-affirming-care.html

Here are some quotes:

“Panelists were reduced to tears during the FTC day-long workshop, featuring multiple panels of experts and detransitioners who shared their stories as the agency assesses whether consumers have been subjected to misleading or unsubstantiated claims about "gender-affirming care."

“The first panel, titled "A Conversation with Parents and Survivors," was moderated by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson… Elvira Syed sobbed as she told the story of how her daughter, who struggled with autism but spoke multiple languages and played several musical instruments, took her own life at age 18 amid her gender confusion."They treated her ideology, not her illness.”

“Multiple doctors spoke about the dangers of transgender procedures on minors, including Dr. Patrick Lappert, who participated in a panel titled "What Does the Science Actually Say About Gender-Affirming Care?" He stated: "The transgender treatment industry operates through the use of deceptive labeling and deceptive practices. It mislabels gender affirmation surgery as reconstructive rather than cosmetic, using that deceptive labeling to defraud public and private insurance programs, as well as defrauding families while medicalizing these young people for life."

“A panel titled "How Can the FTC Protect Families from Harm?" featured Brandon Showalter. Showalter, who has extensively reported for years on the harms transgenderism has inflicted upon children, asserted the ideology is incompatible with truth, has led to deceptive trade practices and must therefore be dismantled.”

Here is a quote from FTC Commissioner Mark Meador: “The FTC has an “unequivocal basis” to start investigating the transgender medicine industry after a workshop highlighting stakeholders’ horror stories. A key part of the context of the possible deception and fraud is that doctors told parents of children experiencing gender dysphoria that they can choose between having “a dead son or a living daughter,” or vice versa. The rhetoric implying a child would commit suicide if not allowed to medically transition is “emotional blackmail. “

How the FTC Investigation can help us win the war against the Trans Drug Cult here in Washington state
This FTC Investigation matters here in Washington state not only because tens of thousands of our kids are being harmed by the Trans Drug Cult, but because two of the national leaders of this cult are Chris Reykdal and Bob Ferguson. This FTC Investigation can help us win the war against the Trans Drug Cult here in Washington state.

For many years, both Reykdal and Ferguson have made a series of false claims about the benefits of getting kids addicted to Trans Drugs and sterilizing them. During this entire time, I have written a series of articles pointing out that there was no benefit to drugging kids – and instead, drugging kids was extremely harmful to kids.

The 12 FTC presentations on July 9, 2025 provided a mountain of evidence from the latest studies confirming not only that Reykdal and Ferguson were lying about Trans Drugs being safe and effective – but that those lies broke federal laws. Now all we need to do is get this information in the hands of the parents and voters here in Washington state – and it is highly likely that the voters will toss both Reykdal and Ferguson and the entire Crazy Cult running Olympia out of office.

What we have done to get the truth out about this evil cult
Unfortunately, the FTC workshop was published as a single 8 hour video on the FTC website. Thus, very few people are likely to even find much less watch. To provide better access to each of the 12 sessions that made up the 8 hour workshop, we have broken the 8 hour video into 12 20 to 40 minute presentations – and added a brief introduction to each video. We have then posted all 12 videos on our Washington Family Rights Coalition YouTube channel. This will make it much easier for folks to watch the 12 individual sessions and share these sessions with other concerned citizens. We have also posted transcripts of each of these 12 videos on Washington Family Rights Coalition.org website so that you can download the transcripts, read them, quote them and share them with your friends and neighbors. Our hope is that over time, every parent in Washington state will be able to watch one of more of these 12 important FTC presentations.

Here are Five things you can help us win this war being waged against our families

First, go to YouTube.com and search for our “Washington Family Rights Coalition” channel. Then watch and share one or more of our 12 FTC Dangers of Trans Drugs videos.

Second, help us increase our ranking in the YouTube search algorithms by clicking the LIKE button!

Third, subscribe to our Washington Family Rights YouTube channel and click the notification bell to get notified about future videos we post.

Fourth, go to our website, Washington Family Rights Coalition.org and make a donation so we post more videos, and host more Family Rights Forums and reach more citizens here in Washington state. The truth is a powerful weapon. If we can get the truth out, we can and will win this war against the Trans Drug Cult.

Fifth, if you agree that it is time to get replace Reykdal and Ferguson, then please come to our next Washington Family Rights Coalition online meeting which will be Sunday from 4 to 5 pm where we will review our plan to restoring Family Rights here in Washington state. For the link, send an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We look forward to meeting you.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Director, Washington Family Rights Coalition