Law & Courts

High Court Declines to Hear School Board Challenge to Scope of Transgender Student Rights

By Mark Walsh — June 28, 2021 3 min read
Gavin Grimm, who has become a national face for transgender students, speaks during a news conference held by The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia at Slover Library in Norfolk, Va on July 23, 2019.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

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’s 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.

“I am glad that my years-long fight to have my school see me for who I am is over,” Grimm, who graduated from Gloucester County High School in 2017, said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents him. “Being forced to use the nurse’s room, a private bathroom, and the girl’s 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.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., had ruled 2-1 in 2020 that both the 14th Amendment’s 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 Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., which held that the prohibition against discrimination “on the basis of sex” 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 Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm (Case No. 20-1163), said the 4th Circuit’s reliance on Bostock was misplaced because Title IX is a “vastly different statute” 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.

“A teenager who identifies with the opposite biological sex … deserves and needs everyone’s compassion,” the district said in its brief. But allowing such a teenager “to 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—for the teenager and others,” the brief said.

David P. Corrigan, the Gloucester County district’s longtime lawyer, said the district had no comment about the high court’s 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’s protection against sex discrimination, particularly in the area of transgender female students’ participation in girls’ and women’s 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’s 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’s 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.

“This is an incredible victory for Gavin and for transgender students around the country,” Block said in a statement. “Our work is not yet done, and the ACLU is continuing to fight against anti-trans laws targeting trans youth in states around the country.”

Events

Ed-Tech Policy Webinar Artificial Intelligence in Practice: Building a Roadmap for AI Use in Schools
AI in education: game-changer or classroom chaos? Join our webinar & learn how to navigate this evolving tech responsibly.
Education Webinar Developing and Executing Impactful Research Campaigns to Fuel Your Ed Marketing Strategy 
Develop impactful research campaigns to fuel your marketing. Join the EdWeek Research Center for a webinar with actionable take-aways for companies who sell to K-12 districts.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Privacy & Security Webinar
Navigating Cybersecurity: Securing District Documents and Data
Learn how K-12 districts are addressing the challenges of maintaining a secure tech environment, managing documents and data, automating critical processes, and doing it all with limited resources.
Content provided by Softdocs

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Declines to Hear School District's Transgender Restroom Case
The case asked whether federal law protects transgender students on the use of school facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
4 min read
People stand on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
People stand on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
Law & Courts What a Proposed Ban on AI-Assisted ‘Deep Fakes’ Would Mean for Cyberbullying
Students who create AI-generated, intimate images of their classmates would be breaking federal law, if a new bill is enacted.
2 min read
AI Education concept in blue: A robot hand holding a pencil.
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Supreme Court Declines Case on Corporal Punishment for Student With Autism
The justices refused to hear the appeal of an 11-year-old Louisiana student who alleges that two educators slapped her on her wrists.
3 min read
The Supreme Court building is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2023.
The Supreme Court building is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2023.
Patrick Semansky/AP
Law & Courts U.S. Supreme Court Declines Bid to Rename 'Brown v. Board of Education'
Descendants argued that their case, not the one from Topeka, Kan., should have topped the 1954 decision on racial segregation in schools.
3 min read
Linda Brown Smith stands in front of the Sumner School in Topeka, Kan., on May 8, 1964. The refusal of the public school to admit Brown in 1951, then nine years old, because she is black, led to the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" clause and mandated that schools nationwide must be desegregated.
Linda Brown Smith stands in front of the Sumner School in Topeka, Kan., in 1964, a segregated white school where she had been denied enrollment in 1951, leading to the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the "separate but equal" doctrine in the case that bears her family name, <i>Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.</i> The high court on Jan. 8 turned away an effort by descendants of the litigants in a companion desegregation case from South Carolina to rename the historic decision for their case, <i>Briggs</i> v. <i>Elliott</i>.
AP