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 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. In fact, there are only three groups of people protected by the 14th 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 14th 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 14th 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.