This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
Justices asked questions about mootness, classification, scientific evidence, and the appropriate level of scrutiny.
What each side argues
Petitioners' Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondents' Position
H.B. 500 fails heightened scrutiny as applied to Lindsay and transgender women who have no sex‑based biological advantage compared with birth‑sex females.
What happened at oral argument
Ms. Hartnett argued that H.B. 500 fails heightened scrutiny as applied to transgender women who lack a biological advantage.
Justices asked a series of questions concerning mootness, classification, scientific uncertainty, and the level of scrutiny appropriate for the case.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a26097949d49568d3625-r1-a4e0123e8dcad8f8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 18, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.