Supreme Court Declines to Review Lower Court’s Decision in Key Transgender Case – ACLU Declares “Victory”
Decision of Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appels said Indiana must allow transgender students to use school bathroom consistent with their gender identity – ACLU calls it a “victory” for transgender rights
The United States Supreme Court has refused to review a recent decision of the Seventh Circuit mandating that Indiana schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity, not their biological sex.
From Newsweek: Supreme Court Deals Blow to School in Fight Against Transgender Student:
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to an Indiana school district on Tuesday in their fight against a transgender student who was prohibited from using the boys’ bathroom.
The court denied to hear arguments in the METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT V. A. C case, allowing a lower court ruling, which sided with the transgender student, to stand….
The decision comes several months after the lawsuit was filed by the student, who is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Indiana, against the Metropolitan School District in Martinsville, Indiana….
TUESDAY LAW DORK: Supreme Court lets win stand for trans student in Indiana bathroom ban case. The order puts off Supreme Court review of the legality of such bans across the country. https://t.co/R6nAxD5hT6
— Law Dork (@lawdorknews) January 17, 2024
The Seventh Circuit’s Order, available here, had affirmed a lower Indiana federal court preliminary injunction blocking Martinsville Schools’ policy that students use bathrooms bathrooms consistent with their biological sex.
The ACLU is, of course, ecstatic: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Title IX Victory for Transgender Rights
BREAKING: The Supreme Court declined to review a federal court ruling in favor of a transgender student challenging a discriminatory restroom policy at an Indiana public school.
A lower court’s ruling remains in place requiring the school to treat trans students equally.
— ACLU (@ACLU) January 16, 2024
Bloomberg points out a couple key aspects of the Court’s refusal to consider the case: US Supreme Court Passes on Transgender Student Bathroom Dispute
Affirming a trial court decision, the Seventh Circuit ruled the student was likely to win his claims of unlawful discrimination in violation of the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education programs.
The appeals court said its ruling was strengthened by the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that decision, the high court ruled Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in the workplace protects gay and transgender workers.
The Supreme Court in 2021 rejected an appeal from a Virginia school board after the Fourth Circuit backed Gavin Grimm, a transgender high school student in his fight to use the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity.
These three points are each important:
First, the Seventh Circuit Order, as Bloomberg points out, merely affirmed a preliminary injunction saying that it was “likely” that the student would win her case. Now the case goes back to the Indiana federal trial-level court for further litigation and trial. The school district could still win that case, at trial or on appeal of the trial results.
Second, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling is inherently weak because it relied on Bostock. In that case, as Bloomberg correctly points out, the Supreme court held for the first time that Title VII employment discrimination claims could be brought by transgender employees. But what Bloomberg omits to say is that Bostock expressly held that its ruling did not apply to any other transgender situation. From Bostock:
The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” As used in Title VII, the term “‘discriminate against’” refers to “distinctions or differences in treatment that injure protected individuals.” Burlington N. & S. F. R., 548 U. S., at 59. Firing employees because of a statutorily protected trait surely counts. Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.
So to the extent the Seventh Circuit relied on Bostock, it was mistaken to do so.
Third, Bloomberg points out that in a similar case in Virginia where the Fourth Circuit backed the transgender student, the Supreme Court also declined to review the case, making this the second time the Court has declined to review such a case.
But there is hope!
That is because there is a definite conflict, or “circuit split,” in how different U.S. Courts of Appeals handle this type of case.
As the “amicus“, or “friend of the court” brief submitted by the Thomas More Society points out, “sex” as defined by Title IX “means gender identity rather than biological sex” according to the Seventh and Fourth Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeals, whereas the Eleventh Circuit, covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, defines “sex” to mean biological sex for Title IX purposes. And the Eleventh Circuit case was decided en banc, meaning every active Circuit Judge on the Eleventh Circuit heard that case, elevating its importance.
And circuit splits are one of the main drivers for the Supreme Court to take a given case, so that the Justices can impart consistency across the country on legal issues.
So why the denial to take the case by the Court?
It is truly anybody’s guess, but my guess is that apart from the extremely small number of cases that the Court actually takes in a given year, the Court may be sensing the tremendous turmoil across the country regarding the rights of “transgender” students, both in the bathroom context but more importantly in the school sports context, and the Court may well be waiting for an appropriate time and case to grant review and weigh in on these critical issues.
They can’t stay silent forever when you have a definite Circuit split occurring and lower courts misinterpreting Bostock so completely.
We will, as always, keep you updated.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Non court watcher question. Are the Supremes looking an a different case with a similar factual makeup?
Reading further I see that this is rejection of having a hearing on the temporary order rather than a court decision.
Note to self… Read the whole dam thing before spouting off!
That may be so, but, the writing is on the wall. SCOTUS wants to deal with the “trans” “rights” question with the same timidity and reluctance that it reserves for Second Amendment-related litigation. The Court will punt on litigation related to the “trans” issue for as long as possible until forced to deal with it, and, when it does, the feckless Gorsuch and “I don’t want to rock the boat” Roberts will side with the three Dhimmi-crat activist-legislators in black robes, to lean on Bostock and uphold/expand “trans” “rights.”
The writing on the wall should define “transgendered” as a mental disability. But instead the courts are treating them like any other persecuted ethnic group (except Jews). That means we know what the final ruling will be.
I am somewhat of a court watcher – more so than most layman. One of two things are occurring when cert is not granted is A) the Justices that want the case heard, dont think it will get the needed 5 votes or B) they are waiting for a better fact pattern in order to make a broader and/or more solid ruling.
In this case, it was only at the injunction stage, so it could still be heard on appeal.
We can thank Gorsuch for his wretched and legally and morally indefensible opinion in Bostock. Read the Court’s opinion, if you can stomach it. The tortured and contortionist “reasoning” that Gorsuch employed to find that Title VII allegedly encompasses “transgendered” individuals — a conceit never mentioned in the statute’s text, nor ever contemplated by the statute’s legislator-drafters — is farcical and contemptible. It goes something like this — “Transgender individuals believe that they are members of the opposite sex; ergo, they are members of the sex that they believe themselves to be, for purposes of enjoying Title VII protections.” Yes, the “jurisprudence” on display is that amateurish, irrational and infantile.
The Bostock opinion is simply a nauseating display of jurisprudential caprice, arrogance and stupidity. Gorsuch can never redeem himself for his facilitation of this moral disgrace.
I’ll edit my penultimate sentence to read: “The Bostock opinion is simply a nauseating display of judicial caprice, arrogance and stupidity.”
As usual SCOTUS pretends its “reputation” is part of the case and decides in its own interest (nothing to do with the actual litigation). Moral cowardice doesn’t begin to describe this. Normal Americans hear chickens clucking.
Bostock has been just about the only case where I have disagreed with Gorsuch. Almost all others where is has been in the majority or when he has written a dissent I have agreed with. See his dissent in Gamble. spot on
That may be BUT the epic huge mistake that is Bostock with far reaching society changing effects….is more than enough to despise Gorsucks forever
I agree – Gorsuch’s Bostock opinion was pathetic. Completely missed textualism. However, his other opinions and dissents have been very good.
Gorsuch is a nerd. The idea that equality means no separate but equal bathrooms had only existed as a thought exercise. Gorsuch is an abstract thinker so he rules according to the idea.
One point on bostock
The allignment was 6-3
Very likely the alignment was 5-4 with roberts being the liberal and Gorsuch switching his vote to write a much narrower opinion.
And, we knew at the time of the Court’s Bostock decision how utterly devastating the repercussions would be to girls and women, because now, the tranny narcissists, misogynists and child/teen abusers, exploiters and manipulators (and, their Dhimmi-crat enablers and allies) had a newly-minted SCOTUS opinion that they could point to as legal precedent for their obnoxious and misogynistic invasion of girls’ and womens’ sports and private spaces.
This is a foreteller of why SCOTUS will deny Trump, and only Trump, presidential immunity
This case has absolutely nothing to do with Trump and presidential immunity. Did you bother to read even a single word of this post?
Yes I did read it. The fact that SCOTUS is punting on an issue that if correctly ruled on would, as stated, result in ” tremendous turmoil across the country”, so would correctly finding that a president cannot be prosecuted for acts while in office unless and until the Constitutional provisions of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, were satisfied. We all know that the DC Court of Appeals will rule that Trump has no immunity and SCOTUS as I’ve previously stated will do nothing to help Trump for reasons previously outlined here, ie, Roberts disdain for Trump is obvious, Kavanaugh remembers that assassin sent to adjust his attitude on abortion and knows the possibility of the next one not whimping out, Barrett is a snake in the grass, and Gorsuch imagines himself the next Chief Justice and will do nothing to piss off influential Senators, namely Schumer and McConnell
To be clear are you arguing that a successful impeachment in the HoR and a successful conviction in the Senate and removal from office are required and that unless they occur a POTUS is not liable for criminal actions committed as POTUS even AFTER the term ends?
It only makes sense that a president would have immunity for official acts as president
What Criminal action?
Ironclaw
1. Official actions would be in accordance with the powers of the Office of the Presidency as outlined in the Constitution so they wouldn’t be a criminal act.
2. Hypothetical acts of a hypothetical POTUS
Ironclaw, nobody disputes that presidents have immunity for official acts, just like any officer does. The dispute is only over the definition of “official acts”.
But what MarkS is ludicrously claiming is that presidents have immunity for all acts committed while in office, even completely private ones, which immunity is somehow lifted by impeachment and removal, and only by that method. He’s saying that Biden could literally shoot someone in front of dozens of witnesses, and be immune from prosecution until and unless the house impeaches him and the senate removes him. If he leaves office without that happening, he can’t be prosecuted for it. According to MarkS, Ford’s suicidal pardon of Nixon was unnecessary, because he was already immune for anything he did while in office.
MarkS doesn’t explain why this would not equally apply to all officials.
My fear
The legal issue here mostly concerns standing.
?
I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that women can — but then, I don’t have to clean up afterward when they do.
Ok, I’m a bit slow today.
And what happens when some “women” leave the seat up?
Easterbrook’s concurring opinion in the 7th Circuit is worth a read. He tends to lean to the left, but there is no denying his razor wit and logic. That he is less than enamored with the 7th Circuit precedent that supports the ruling in this case is also further evidence of the weakness of the 7th Circuit’s opinion.
Call them penis room and vagina room and the problem goes away. The problem comes from the words man and woman.
Then that begs the question, what constitute a penis/vagina? Does a strap-on qualifies as a penis? Does a surgically created vagina qualifies as a real vagina?
Make the signs read XX and XY.
.
Unfortunately we have (probably more than) one jurist who proudly proclaims that she/he/it is not a biologist and thus unable to determine what is a woman (and that was certainly a lie, and probably under oath). That signage would blow right past that one, or vice versa.
My best guess? Roberts, C.J.
He’s not the kind who can let the Court get ahead of the howling mob, especially since Dobbs.
I was in a Women’s bathroom in Austin Tx at Whole Foods..
It is clearly marked, as is the men’s room…..
Next to me was clearly a man, size 14 shoes it seemed, grunting and groaning, I couldn’t see in the door, thankfully very well sealed, but what a putz
I got the hell out of there
If he had come out while I was washing my hands, we would have had words
That describes what Trump has publicly stated as his position re Trans rights ‘let them use the facilities they feel comfortable with’. He hasn’t modified that position that I am aware of.
It is one of the reasons I am hesitant about supporting him in the primary. If he becomes the nominee, as is likely, I will support him in the general election v Biden or whoever else the d/prog run.
Yes, on some things he’s still a knee jerk NYC liberal. My major problem is how he makes his personnel choices. He values personal loyalty to him above all else. That leads to him making really bad choices, one, since the his personnel are often opposed to his stated policies. And, two, he seems to have bad instincts when it comes to who is actually loyal to him in the first place. And just how long is this personal loyalty supposed to last? He thinks it’s a lifetime commitment apparently, which is BS.
His recent attempts to slam Nikki Haley are revealing and reflect badly on Trump. He says she was a weak UN Ambassador who couldn’t stand up to hostile world leaders.
My reaction to this is, “you weren’t a bystander in all this, DJT.” He picked her for the job. If what he’s saying now is true then he should have fired her back then.
I’m not endorsing her. I think she’s way too liberal; practically a Democrat. But then I’ve already covered this in my first criticism of how he makes his personnel choices.
But when he dredges this up now it makes him look like a weak leader because, again, if it’s true why did he keep her on.
More likely he’s angry she isn’t putting aside her own ambitions and remaing personally loyal to him.
Perhaps Jackson is not the only one who can’t define a woman?
The Equal Protection Clause and Title IX certainly protect the rights of biological women. How are their rights protected by allowing biological men into their restrooms and locker rooms?
According to the logic of Bostock, not allowing biological men into certain rooms, merely because they are biological men, discriminates against them on the grounds of sex. The fact that they can use certain other rooms from which biological women are barred only makes it worse, since that’s discrimination against the women because they’re women.
Doubling the discrimination doesn’t make it go away, any more than it did in Loving; and Loving said telling white people they can’t marry black people and vice versa is no different than telling white train passengers they can’t ride in cars designated for colored people and vice versa, even when the cars are identical.
Seems to me the ACLU is end zone dancing 30 yards short of the goal line. That rarely ends well.
I see ACLU playing English Football and not recognizing that the other side is playing Americn Football. That ends up even worse
Maybe schools will need to declare that restrooms are ‘extrajurisdictional,’ that school administration, teachers and school resource officer won’t be dealing with them, and that it is up to student to determine which they use and who is permitted entry? :-
We can contort all the words we want when reflecting on why the Supremes rule one way or another on this issue. Want to fix it? Take the WH, Congress and Senate then amend Title VII and IX to specify biological sex. Problem solved and the Supremes don’t need to be involved. Better yet sunset the Dept of Education and all the title crap and laws that go with it. FJB
A predominantly Muslim school district will not tolerate this and why should they. God forbid one one of their daughters gets assaulted.
Gorsuch got us here. He blessed it. It’s on him.
Court Cites Neil Gorsuch’s Opinion While Allowing Transgender Student to Use Bathroom of Choice
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/court-cites-neil-gorsuchs-opinion-while-allowing-transgender-student-to-use-bathroom-of-choice/