Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Virginia School Bathroom Case, Securing Victory For Transgender Male

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Virginia School Bathroom Case, Securing Victory For Transgender Male

School District has wanted Court to rule on the following Question: “Does Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause require schools to let transgender students use multiuser restrooms designated for the opposite biological sex, even when single-user restrooms are available for all students regardless of gender identity?

The Supreme Cour has declined to hear a case from Virginia where the lower courts ruled in favor of a male transgender student who alleged that special accomodations, including a single use bathroom, were a violation of law and that the student must be allowed the full use of male bathroom facilities.

We haven’t covered the case since its early days, when we noted:

To briefly summarize, Gavin Grimm (or GG as he is referred to in court documents) is a transgender male. This means that the sex  at birth was female, but he identifies as male. According to court documents, Grimm “lives all aspects of his life as a boy” but has not had sex reassignment surgery.

Prior to the start of his sophomore year of high school, Grimm and his mother informed the Gloucester County School Board that he was a transgender boy. By all accounts the Board was exceedingly accommodating. For about seven weeks (and with his school’s permission), Grimm utilized the boys’ room without incident. Eventually, however, students took note of the fact that Grimm was a transgender boy, and some were less than comfortable with the arrangement.

In response, the school board devised a policy whereby all students would either need to 1) utilize bathrooms that correspond with their sex assigned at birth; or 2) utilize one of several “unisex” or gender-neutral bathrooms. Grimm filed this law suit to challenge that policy.

NBC News summarizes the complicated legal history of the case:

Grimm originally went to court in 2015, arguing that the school board’s policy made him feel ashamed and isolated, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, ruled in his favor. It said refusing to let students use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate the federal law.

That ruling cited an Obama-era Education Department letter that said “a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX, and the school district appealed to the Supreme Court.

But when the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter in 2017, the justices said they would not hear the case and vacated the appeals court ruling. So Grimm refiled his lawsuit and won again in the lower courts, leading to this current appeal to the Supreme Court.

Two things have changed since the first time the case came before the justices. The Supreme Court ruled last year that a federal civil rights law bans employment discrimination on the basis of gender identify, and now the Biden administration has interpreted that ruling as applying to Title IX as well.

The Supreme Court case docket page contains the Petition, which framed the Question Presented as follows:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Although Title IX prohibits schools from discriminating “on the basis of sex,” 20 U.S.C. §1681(a), it expressly permits them to provide separate living facilities, including restrooms, for the different sexes. 20 U.S.C. §1686; 34 C.F.R. §106.33. This protracted case began when Gavin Grimm, a biological female who self-identifies as male, challenged the local school board’s decision to require him to use either a unisex restroom or a restroom assigned to members of his biological sex, i.e., girls. Four years ago, this Court granted certiorari in this case after the Fourth Circuit deferred to an unpublished letter from the Department of Education, asserting that Title IX requires schools to treat students consistent with their gender identities rather than their biological sex. After a new Administration withdrew that letter, the Court vacated and remanded. The district court and the Fourth Circuit then held that both Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause forbid schools from denying transgender students access to the restrooms assigned to the opposite biological sex. Following yet another election, the current Administration has announced it intends to enforce that position nationwide.

The question presented is:

Does Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause require schools to let transgender students use multiuser restrooms designated for the opposite biological sex, even when single-user restrooms are available for all students regardless of gender identity?

Grimm’s opposition Brief reframed the Question Presented as follows:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether a school board policy prohibiting a transgender boy from using the same multi-user school restrooms as other boys violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when the evidence shows that the policy subjects that student to separate and unequal treatment.

Today the Supreme Court released its Order List, refusing to hear the case, with Thomas and Alito indicating they would have taken the case.

20-1163 GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD V. GRIMM, GAVIN

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the petition for a writ of
certiorari.

Until further notice, which SCOTUS does not want to give, “on the basis of sex” means on basis of “gender identity” across a broad spectrum of laws, not just for employment discrimination statutes ruled on in the Bostock case.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Interesting to watch ACB, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch vote with the leftist Justices time and time again. I keep waiting for this so-called conservative Supreme Court to appear, but so far it hasn’t.

This is on Trump. Yes – he had the Franz von Papen Republicans in the Senate to contend with. But if Trump has an Achilles heel it is his uncanny knack to constantly heed the advice of people who only wish him ill. The fact that China McConnell – who routinely slow-walked or blocked much of Trump’s agenda – was suddenly and miraculously accommodating when it came to Supreme Court Justices should have been a warning.

    I don’t think so. Try again, chump.

    First, you don’t understand the way the courts work.
    This was simply a refusal to hear the case. It was not a ruling on the case.
    The court refuses to hear 99 percent of all the things appealed to it, so a refusal to hear this case means nothing.
    The court probably refused to hear the case because the facts were not very good. This was not a case where someone was trying to force someone to use the boys or girls bathrooms – it was an odd case because the school created special unisex bathrooms for the transgenders. This confuses the issue, and makes the case not a good one to hear, if you want to decide the issue of whether transgenders can be forced to use the opposite sex bathrooms.
    Unscrupulous web sites always make a big deal when the court refuses to hear a case – Because they need readers, they have to pretend that something outrageous is happening every day. When all it was was a refusal to hear one case. That one refusal is NOT the court speaking on a subject.
    Unsrupulous web sites, however, want you to be angry all the time and so they distort what really happened so you will continue to read.
    The Court right now is very, very good court. Do not believe all the crap and people constantly screaming their heads off. They are usually trying to fool you.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to fredx3. | June 28, 2021 at 6:22 pm

      “The court refuses to hear 99 percent of all the things appealed to it, so a refusal to hear this case means nothing.”

      Actually, it means the lower court ruling stands, and is now precedent for other courts, and that, now too, the lower court ruling and guidance public and private entities will follow.

    henrybowman in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | June 28, 2021 at 6:22 pm

    I’m finding it impractical to attempt to pigeonhole Gorsuch. I’ve noticed his name on the freedom side of several recent decisions and cert battles (Lange v. CA, McGirt v. OK, Ramos v. LA, Small v. Memphis Light Gas & Water). (Note that the “freedom side” was not always the “conservative side” — ruling that the fedguv was still bound by a treaty awarding vast areas of a state to an Indian tribe was hardly favored by conservatives.)

    ACB, on the other hand, has been a thudding disappointment.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | June 29, 2021 at 9:06 am

    And, reflexively, the leftists will cast aspersions on ACB, Cave-in-augh, and Gorsuch because they are the picks of The Big Bad Orange Man.

Are you kidding me???

You have an opportunity for you VERY OWN BATHROOM in high school and you give it up???

Crazy.

    Ben Kent in reply to alohahola. | June 28, 2021 at 12:33 pm

    Gay civil rights organizations succeeded in achivng civil rights for same-sex partners.

    But Liberal gay organizations decided to hijack the movement. It is no longer about civil liberty. It is now about forcing gender confusion and promoting a Marxist agenda.

    When did it morph into this? When HRC’s board was taken over by Marxists.

    Many gay men (and women) support civit rights – but not the HRC political agenda.

    In fact, HRC hurts gay civil rights by implying that gays support the HRC political agenda. Many straight people are getting the idea that all gays must be Marxists. That’s why it is dangerous for an organization like HRC to imply the speak for all gays in pushing their political and gender policies. By making this a political thing (rather than civil rights) they undermine the progress made on civil rights.

    I demand that HRC and other gay rights organizations – stop promoting a political agenda and return to a focus on civil rights. If they can not stick to civil rights – stop asserting that yoou speak for all gay men and women- because you don’t.

    henrybowman in reply to alohahola. | June 28, 2021 at 6:09 pm

    For a detailed social analysis of that argument, see South Park S18/E3 (excerpt).

Gorsuch can never redeem himself for his act of judicial contrivance and arrogance, in irrationally and indefensibly extending Title VII to homosexuals and the “transgendered.” A statute that never mentions these groups, and, whose legislative drafters never mentioned them during their deliberations, is now deemed to include them. As obnoxious and outrageous an act of total judicial narcissism and shoddy jurisprudence as you’ll ever see. Read the Court’s opinion. Gorsuch’s reasoning is tortured, illogical, and, frankly, amateurish. An opinion that is an utter abomination, jurisprudentially, intellectually and morally.

    guyjones in reply to guyjones. | June 28, 2021 at 11:23 am

    I realize that Title VII wasn’t at issue, in this case. I’m criticizing Gorsuch, nonetheless, because his opinion in that case is emblematic of the moral, intellectual and jurisprudential rot that is propelling and empowering the “trans” narcissist-totalitarian agenda.

    You hit the nail on the head. But even more insidious is the reason it’s being foisted on us in the first place: to collapse our society and take it over.

I suppose the school has to put feminine hygiene products and receptacles for their disposal in all of the boys’ bathrooms? Even biological teen girls who identify as girls prefer to have the privacy of a single bathroom during their periods. There was always a line of girls to use the single bathroom in the nurse’s office in the high school where I taught. This student and her parents are only trying to score political points. Like the folks who won’t leave the baker in Colorado alone. Is the Rainbow Alphabet out to alienate everybody? Because if they are, they’re making a lot of progress.

SCOTUS proves once again that it doesn’t really care about the Constitution, the law or even right and wrong. It just wants to be popular with the in kids.

Helluva way to run a country.

    Barry in reply to irv. | June 28, 2021 at 11:56 am

    Yep, might as well get rid of the court along with the DOJ, FBI, and the intelligence agencies. They are all corrupt and they all work against freedom and liberty.

      henrybowman in reply to Barry. | June 28, 2021 at 6:33 pm

      But this is the essential tension of all government.

      “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
      –Thomas Jefferson

      Men fight for freedom, then begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.

The issue is thorny, as technology and social mores evolve. By not accepting this particular case, the Court, particularly the conservatives on the court, keep their powder dry until the right case is in front of them when the subject can be fully addressed, It helps to be familiar with the Ashwander rules.

This going to end badly. Some pervert or pedo is going to use this to gain access to vulnerable folks, and when are you more vulnerable than in a public restroom, to enact their fantasy.

On the other hand, the simplest course might be for everyday, normal Citizens to explore the limits of this decision by invoking their right to visit the restroom of their choice. Those used by political and judicial elites should be prioritized for visitation on the days where one feels !ore in touch with their feminine or masculine side.

    On the other hand, the simplest course might be for everyday, normal Citizens to explore the limits of this decision by invoking their right to visit the restroom of their choice.

    I like the idea of fighting back, but if ordinary citizens incur the wrath of our self-anointed moral and intellectual betters the full weight of the law will come down on them. So anyone who wants to try this should be prepared to pay a steep price.

    Just look at the mayhem in major cities last year and the “insurrection” in DC this year. Antifa and BLM rioted, burned, raped and murdered to their hearts’ content (with very few even being charged, much less convicted), but unarmed protestors who took selfies in the Capitol are having their lives destroyed because they offended Nancy Pelosi.

      CommoChief in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | June 28, 2021 at 2:13 pm

      Either gender is a non binary construct, changeable and fleeting or it isn’t. There isn’t an accepted strict definition of trans, there is a spectrum.

      Until trans is legally defined within narrow and unchanging limits then the current construct of someone simply asserting that they are x gender today would seem to apply.

      If the result is more people availing themselves of this freedom to decide to be x instead of y today and the opposite tomorrow or ten minutes later why shouldn’t the proponents of this be thrilled?

      Choices have consequences. Those suburban ladies who backed these sorts of policies can hardly object because some rando decides to enter the ladies restroom, ladies locker room or ladies shower at the gym or the HS for that matter.

      This was entirely foreseeable. These sorts of objections were raised by the opponents of these policies. They were ignored and forcibly rejected as fear mongering.

      Note I am not in favor of physical harm to anyone. I would prefer a rational definition that is inclusive to those who wish to transition. Fully transition that is.

      Until a precise definition is adopted how can anyone tell someone that they ‘are not trans enough’ to use a particular restroom, locker room or shower? Do that and be sued into oblivion.

        henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | June 28, 2021 at 6:36 pm

        “Those suburban ladies who backed these sorts of policies can hardly object because some rando decides to enter the ladies restroom, ladies locker room or ladies shower at the gym or the HS for that matter.”

        “I’m a woman” now joins the meme lexicon right next to, “These aren’t the drones you’re looking for.”

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | June 28, 2021 at 6:34 pm

    “when are you more vulnerable than in a public restroom”
    When I’m in a Post Office, school, or other government building.
    I can be armed in a public restroom.

      CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | June 28, 2021 at 6:46 pm

      Henry,

      Personally I’ve never dropped trousers outside a public restroom while inside a Post Office, school or government building but hey you do you. Live and let live.

        henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | June 28, 2021 at 10:11 pm

        It’s a rest room, not an opium den, operating room, or even a communal shower.
        My trousers, including what is on them, are both easily within reach.

Lucifer Morningstar | June 28, 2021 at 12:36 pm

Did anyone actually believe that the Roberts SCOTUS would actually take a case like this? I didn’t. Not after all that kerfuffle over “SCOTUS reform” (aka packing the court with liberals) the last time around. The easiest way for Roberts to preserve whatever “legacy” he has on the court and forestall any court packing attempts is to simply refuse to take any controversial cases like this at all. Let the lower courts take the heat for whatever decisions they make. and avoid the controversy. Disgusting.

Maureen from Regina | June 28, 2021 at 1:00 pm

Well I guess it is up to the parents. Take over the board or remove the board

“Transgender” my ass. This is a transvestite.

the theory of over education proved by the SCOTUS

Juris Doctor | June 28, 2021 at 1:46 pm

“Sex assigned at birth” is a nonsense phrase wrought with scientific illiteracy.

    DSHornet in reply to Juris Doctor. | June 28, 2021 at 2:51 pm

    Nobody “assigns” sex. You’re born with one set of reproductive organs or the other. It’s absurd to say you don’t want what you are born with. This person, “GG,” was born female so that is what she (not “he,” she) is. Should we check her chromosomes to eliminate all doubt?
    .

      ConradCA in reply to DSHornet. | June 28, 2021 at 4:37 pm

      Trans people are mentally ill because they refuse to accept reality. They have doctors create better disguises for them but it won’t change the truth. Trans people are committing fraud if the pretend to be of the opposite sex and date a straight person.

      Instead of wasting time on creating disguises for these mentally ill people we should fix their mental illness.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Juris Doctor. | June 29, 2021 at 9:20 am

    At least they didn’t misuse the word “gender”.

More evidence that the body-snatched pod people now control the world. The world has become the most creepy place imaginable,

Juris Doctor | June 28, 2021 at 1:52 pm

The activist wing of a the Fourth Circuit has proclaimed that the delusions of an individual supersede the substantive due process privacy rights of hundreds when the deluded is a member of the “woke” class.

I can’t speak to the trans gender, but I’m worried about the perverts that could take advantage of the new rules. Don’t tell me that perverts won’t do it because we all know they will.Maybe Dateline better set up some camera in there. For liberals, the last sentence was a joke.

    Dathurtz in reply to r2468. | June 28, 2021 at 3:05 pm

    Yep. I don’t think many people care what bathroom gender confused people use. I mostly care that weirdo pervs will use that as an excuse to follow my 5 year old daughter into a public restroom.

I wonder why our Founding Fathers didn’t consider this issue when they were birthing this country. Maybe because, at that time, it was unthinkable? I wonder what the reaction would have been had some purple hair guy wearing a dress stood before them and suggested an addition to the bill of rights insuring toilet access.

Why hold him back? He has a stunning career in fast food ahead of him.
He’s already management material

You will see many more confrontations like this:

“A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women’s section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a “woman.” The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it’s the law.”

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1408997169344909313

    gonzotx in reply to catscradle. | June 28, 2021 at 4:24 pm

    It’s amazing that we as normal people don’t have any rights, if they want to expose themselves in our bathrooms we are not allowed to be offended.
    We.have.to.fight.back!!!

I have always said and still believe it today

If it’s not an improvement, don’t.do.it..

Just wait till sex criminals leave prison and identify as women. Rapists and child abusers will be joining real women in restrooms and locker rooms.

So glad President Trump fought so hard for the these idiots

Ms Amy, the Mormon looking Christ woman, the conservative of all conservatives…and the rapist…

Amy Coney Barrett sides with the transgender left.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch also voted to deny the petition to hear the schoolboard’s claim.

Aren’t you glad we fought for them?

Only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas voted to hear it.

Vote harder, plebians.

Or just know your place and buckle under your Ruling Class Degenerate Overlords.

    CommoChief in reply to gonzotx. | June 28, 2021 at 5:20 pm

    Vote harder? No need to try to do that. Simply showing up to vote is usually enough.

    About 750k voters on Nov 3 failed to vote in the Senate runoff elections. Their absence and the failure to generate a comparable counter to the roughly 228k ‘new’ voters in the runoff who had not voted on Nov 3 and were overwhelmingly d resulted in the loss of two Senate seats.

    Since the Senate must confirm judicial nominations it’s important to vote. No matter how disappointing your view of the r appointed Judiciary is the alternative is almost certainly worse.

    Come to think of it r retaining the Senate would be pretty handy for other reasons as well. So yeah, by all means vote. Grumble about it all you want but don’t simply forfeit.

It is almost like South Park predicts the future, or possibly, gives impressionable idiots dumb ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXio40pl3FI

The Supreme Court is The Founder’s only mistake.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Sternverbs. | June 29, 2021 at 9:30 am

    Maybe the John Birch Society was correct on that subject.

    CaptTee in reply to Sternverbs. | June 29, 2021 at 2:30 pm

    The institution of the Supreme Court that we have today is not what was ratified in the Constitution. The Founders did not make a mistake. It was our great grandparents and grandparents who let Progressive Philosophy be interpreted into the Constitution!

If SCOTUS did hear this, they probably would have or should have mooted it because the kid graduated.

Unfortunately, the result would have been the same.

Court granted certiorari in this case after the Fourth Circuit deferred to an unpublished letter from the Department of Education

I thought the courts had hit bottom when they decided that Trump’s campaign rhetoric in 2020 should be treated as established Executive policy. But basing a decision on an unpublished letter tells us as clear as a bell: there is no court nor justice, only politics.

Is the subject of this case really a male or a delusional neutered female?

antisocialjustice | June 29, 2021 at 11:16 pm

I guess you’d get sued for calling this person a him, he, even though that is what this person is biologically?

I am going to have a hard time going forward I think, because I can’t interact well with such pretentious types (that deny nature, I guess you could say).

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend