Former Idaho State runner Mary Kate Marshall has continued her legal battle over transgender athletes in women’s sports as the case moves toward the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge David Nye has rejected a request by a transgender athlete to dismiss the Hecox v. Little lawsuit, which Marshall has been a defendant in since 2020 after competing against a biological male, June Eastwood. The ruling keeps the case on track to be heard by the Supreme Court early next year.
Marshall, alongside former ISU teammate Madison Kenyon, has been a defendant in the lawsuit since 2020 after facing Eastwood. They were originally trying to have the case dismissed after another transgender athlete, Lindsay Hecox, filed a lawsuit to block Idaho’s law preventing trans athletes from competing in women’s sports to join Boise State’s women’s cross-country team. Marshall and Kenyon were incredulous and appalled to discover that Eastwood was authorized to compete in women’s cross-country and track events, leading to their initial motion to have the case dismissed. They experienced the deflating results of running against and losing to Eastwood, which they found categorically different from losing to a female athlete.
Kenyon previously shared her experience with Fox News Digital about facing a biological male competitor, explaining how her coach informed her and her teammates about the competition. She described the experience of losing to a male athlete as vastly different from losing to a female, leading to her statement that the situation was unfair. Hecox’s challenge was successful, as a federal judge blocked Idaho’s state law, and a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld an injunction blocking the law in 2023.
However, the case faced another hurdle this July, when Marshall, Kenyon, their attorneys, and Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador were able to get the Supreme Court to take the case. Hecox then tried to have the case dismissed before Nye’s ruling. Marshall and Kenyon’s attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) expressed their support for the ruling, emphasizing the need for women and girls to compete on a level playing field. They argued that allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports contradicts biological reality and common sense. ADF’s John Bursch welcomed the district court’s rejection of the dismissal attempt, stating that the case is crucial for the Supreme Court to hear and address the issue of fairness and safety for female athletes.
Hecox’s attorneys, representing the ACLU, Cooley, LLP, and Legal Voice, provided a statement after the ruling, noting that Lindsay Hecox had withdrawn her challenge to Idaho’s HB 500 and that her efforts to have the case dismissed continue. Labrador, who is leading the defense against Hecox, sees Nye’s ruling as a positive sign for their efforts to bring the case before the Supreme Court and achieve a landmark ruling. He hopes for a decision that sets a national precedent on whether men can participate in women’s sports and how transgender individuals are treated under federal and state laws. The case is poised to address a significant and far-reaching issue in the realm of women’s sports and constitutional law.