The U.S. Supreme Court, over the dissent of two justices on Monday, declined to take up the appeal of a Virginia school district in a long-running case about the right of a transgender student to use restrooms consistent with his gender identity.
The court鈥檚 action in the case involving transgender student Gavin Grimm was not a ruling on the merits of the case. But it does bring a long legal battle to a close and leaves in place a federal appeals court decision that the Gloucester County, Va., district violated both the equal protection clause and Title IX by adopting a policy that barred Grimm from the boys restroom.
鈥淚 am glad that my years-long fight to have my school see me for who I am is over,鈥� Grimm, who graduated from Gloucester County High School in 2017, said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents him. 鈥淏eing forced to use the nurse鈥檚 room, a private bathroom, and the girl鈥檚 room was humiliating for me, and having to go to out-of-the-way bathrooms severely interfered with my education. Trans youth deserve to use the bathroom in peace without being humiliated and stigmatized by their own school boards and elected officials.鈥�
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., that both the 14th Amendment鈥檚 equal-protection clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools, protect transgender students from school restroom policies that prevent the students from affirming their gender identity.
The 4th Circuit court majority took account of the then-recent Supreme Court decision in , which held that the prohibition against discrimination 鈥渙n the basis of sex鈥� including in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The appellate court said the logic of the Bostock decision applied to Title IX.
The school district, in appealing to the high court in (Case No. 20-1163), said the 4th Circuit鈥檚 reliance on Bostock was misplaced because Title IX is a 鈥渧astly different statute鈥� than Title VII. Title IX allows for sex-separated living facilities on school campuses and its regulations allow for sex-separated restrooms, the district argued.
鈥淎 teenager who identifies with the opposite biological sex 鈥� deserves and needs everyone鈥檚 compassion,鈥� . But allowing such a teenager 鈥渢o use multi-user restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities reserved for the opposite sex raises what this court has acknowledged to be serious concerns about bodily privacy鈥攆or the teenager and others,鈥� the brief said.
David P. Corrigan, the Gloucester County district鈥檚 longtime lawyer, said the district had no comment about the high court鈥檚 action.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would have granted review of the case. Alito wrote the main dissent in the Bostock case last term, joined by Thomas, that discussed with dismay what the Title VII ruling might mean for interpreting Title IX鈥檚 protection against sex discrimination, particularly in the area of transgender female students鈥� participation in girls鈥� and women鈥檚 school sports.
Given how much is percolating around the country with transgender student rights in contexts beyond school restrooms, including locker rooms and athletic competitions, some Supreme Court justices may believe that the Gloucester County case was not the best vehicle to address whether Title IX鈥檚 bar on sex discrimination works the same way as the court interpreted the sex-bias clause in Title VII.
Josh Block, who represents Grimm for the ACLU, noted that Monday鈥檚 action was the third time in recent years that the Supreme Court has declined to review federal appeals court rulings in favor of transgender students.
鈥淭his is an incredible victory for Gavin and for transgender students around the country,鈥� Block said in a statement. 鈥淥ur work is not yet done, and the ACLU is continuing to fight against anti-trans laws targeting trans youth in states around the country.鈥�
