The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tried to drop its own transgender-related athlete case, but an Appeals Court denied the request.

Idaho has a law in place that blocks biological men who identify as women from competing in female sports categories. The ACLU, representing a man who goes by the name “Lindsay” Hecox, challenged the law, accusing it of being “hateful” and “harmful.” The case, Little v. Hecox, came about because Hecox wanted to participate in the girls’ cross-country and track team at Boise State University but was denied due to him being a biological male.

In defending its attempt to withdraw its own case, having filed a “suggestion of mootness” back in September, the ACLU said that “Lindsay ended her participation in any women’s athletic programs covered by HB 500 to prioritize finishing her degree at Boise State and her personal safety and wellness. Lindsay withdrew her challenge to Idaho’s HB 500 and that remains unchanged.” The group noted how the U.S. Supreme Court, which is scheduled to take on Little v. Hecox in January, is already planning to hear arguments for “a challenge to a nearly identical law.” Nonetheless, the ACLU’s request to drop Hecox’s case was still rejected.

Advocates for protecting women’s sports have celebrated the lower court’s decision, arguing it should also set a precedent for the high court. Kristen Waggoner, president and CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), wrote on X, “This strengthens [ADF’s] argument to SCOTUS that it too should reject the attempt to scuttle the case.” She had previously noted how she was “astonished” at the ACLU’s file for a dismissal, deeming it “a desperate, bad-faith move.” Waggoner further clarified that the ACLU, despite its attempt to backpedal, “picked this fight.”

It’s been a “five-year litigation against Idaho’s law,” she added, and “the ACLU has repeatedly argued that this issue is ‘a live controversy’ and is ‘not moot.’ They won at the 9th Circuit, forcing Idahoans to allow men in women’s sports against their will. And now that the Supreme Court has taken up the case, they suddenly want to take their ball and go home? That’s not right — and SCOTUS has looked unfavorably on this tactic in the past.”

Concerning the lower court’s decision, the office of Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) released a statement, emphasizing how the “court has ruled that … Idaho has earned the right to present our case to the nation’s highest court. This decision keeps our lawsuit alive, and I won’t stop until women and girls are safe to compete, participate, and excel in competitive sports.”

Former Idaho State University (ISU) women’s cross-country runner Mary Kate Marshall is a defendant in the case, and she also reacted to the latest development. “This case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to affirm that women and girls have the right to compete fairly,” she said. “Sports have shaped the skills I use every day — skills I wouldn’t have developed without the opportunity for safe and fair competition. Women’s voices deserve to be heard loud and clear at SCOTUS with one clear message: Biological men have no place in women’s sports.”

In a comment to The Washington Stand, Doreen Denny, senior advisor at Concerned Women for America, reacted to these developments. “There is no question the ACLU fears the outcome of this case at the Supreme Court,” she stated. As she went on to explain, “Idaho was the pioneer in protecting women’s sports and it deserves its day at the highest court.” Yet, “The ACLU has done everything possible to block state laws from protecting girls’ sports for girls only” — only to then turn around and try to “disqualify itself from the competition. This is nothing but a stunt.”

“For the last five years,” Denny continued, “the ACLU has used Hecox’s shifting status to its advantage to keep this case alive and Idaho athletes unprotected. The district court judge who just denied the ACLU’s request to dismiss the case is the same judge who blocked Idaho in 2020 from enforcing its law in the first place. Judge Nye has changed his tune with this ruling, and the ACLU knows it is very likely to lose.” However, she noted, “The highest court should see through the charade.”

Mary Szoch, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity and a former NCAA Division I athlete, also spoke with TWS. She echoed Denny’s remarks, stating, “The ACLU clearly wants to drop their case because of the high likelihood that the Supreme Court will respond with a commonsense decision — men cannot play women’s sports.”

Szoch asserted that “this is something that should be decided once and for all,” because “women should not have to wonder if, at any given point in their athletic career, they are going to come in second or not make a team because a man took their spot. It’s unfair, it’s unsafe, and it’s based in a lie.”

“Thankfully,” Szoch concluded, “Americans have woken up to this ridiculousness and rejected it.”