We will hear argument first this morning in case 2438, Little v. Hecocks.

Mr. Hurst.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

Idaho's law classifies on the basis of sex because sex is what matters in sports.

It correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages like size, muscle mass, bone mass, and heart and lung capacity.

Tragically, but not surprisingly, male athletes have even injured female athletes in many sports.

If women don't have their own competitions, they won't be able to compete.

Gender identity does not matter in sports, and that's why Idaho's law does not classify on the basis of gender identity.

It treats all males equally and all females equally, regardless of identity, and its purpose

is exactly what the legislature said, preserving women's equal opportunity.

In fact, it's our friends on the other side who want to classify based on gender identity.

They're seeking

special treatment for males who allegedly lack an unfair advantage. But only if those males also

identify as transgender. Denying special treatment isn't classifying on the basis of transgender

status. It's consciously choosing not to. Idaho's sex-based classification would get intermediate scrutiny

if Hickox challenged it. But Hickox's requested relief presupposes separate women's sports.

All Hickox challenges is the law's application to a tiny subset of males who identify as

transgender and suppress their testosterone, but that's not how

intermediate scrutiny works. Idaho's law is a substantial fit for 99% of males, and a perfect

fit is not required, if it were that would be the end of all sex-based classifications.

Finally, a word about mootness. When trying to avoid mootness below,

Hecox told the court, I intend to play women's club soccer this semester, next semester,

...