In 2019, the University of Montana allowed a runner named June Eastwood, a biological male who identified as female, to compete in women’s events. Among Eastwood’s competitors were two students from Idaho State University, Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, who went on to defeat Eastwood on multiple occasions.
The following year, Idaho’s legislature passed HB 500, making it the first state to protect women’s sports from competition by biological males.
Since then, there have been both challenges and advancements. Activists from the ACLU quickly filed a lawsuit to block the law, and so far, the courts have sided with them. Additionally, the case of Lia Thomas, a swimmer who competed in the NCAA Women’s Swimming Title, has intensified national discussions on gender identity in sports.
By the time the 2024 election rolled around, President Trump had prominently included this issue in his campaign, criticizing Democrats for their views on gender identity. His victory opened the door for a presidential order in February that strongly reflected Idaho’s law: men should not compete in women’s sports.
A recent poll showed that 79% of Americans believe women’s sports should be reserved for women, which has given significant support to Trump’s order. This momentum has even influenced the NCAA to reconsider policies that allowed men to compete against women.
Despite the shift in public opinion, Idaho is struggling to enforce its groundbreaking laws. There’s an urgent need to end the infringement on equal opportunities for women and ensure fairness for female athletes in Idaho.
Idaho is not alone in this effort; West Virginia has also enacted similar protections and faced lawsuits from the ACLU. Recognizing the need for national clarity, these states have teamed up with lawyers advocating for their right to petition the Supreme Court. On July 3rd, marking Idaho’s 135th anniversary, the Court agreed to review both states’ cases, presenting an opportunity for national fairness in women’s sports.
This is a pivotal moment for everyone advocating for safety and equity in women’s sports. Trump’s executive order has accelerated conversations at the federal level, but pending Supreme Court cases like Little v. Hecox in Idaho and West Virginia v. BPJ raise critical questions about protecting the integrity of women’s sports.
Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as US v. Skrmetti, have provided positive precedents. This ruling supported Tennessee’s law that prevents medical professionals from exposing children to experimental transition procedures and allowed Idaho to enforce its child protection law.
However, Skrmetti did not address the women’s sports issue. Both Idaho and West Virginia are urging courts to review their cases in light of this precedent, suggesting that justices recognize the need for comprehensive clarity.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of these arguments, it could ensure that female athletes enjoy a level playing field. Girls would then have the freedom to excel in sports and pursue educational and professional opportunities without the fear of competing against biological males.
This progress wouldn’t be possible without the determination of young female athletes like those in Connecticut and West Virginia, as well as Madison and Mary Kate from Idaho, who have all championed the protection of women’s sports.
While there’s still much work to be done to ensure full protection for women’s sports, there are promising signs for the future. Institutions like Upenn have begun to reverse policies that allowed men to compete against women, partly due to pressure from the Trump administration.
By taking up these cases, the Supreme Court offers Idaho, West Virginia, and other states a chance to solidify protections for female athletes, ensuring that all girls in America receive a fair opportunity to compete and win.
