SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Trans Bathroom Case, a Win for Trans Activists

The debate over trans bathrooms has intensified in recent years with Republican governors becoming more aggressive in the fight.

Monday, though, the Supreme Court gave a victory to the LGBT activists.

The high court announced Monday it would not hear the case of Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm, where a trans student sued the school for a policy requiring students use the bathroom of their biological sex.

- Advertisement -

Since the Supreme Court did not take up the case, the lower court’s ruling in favor of Grimm stands. However, this does not set SCOTUS precedent or prevent a future case ruling either way on this issue.

“The Supreme Court is not challenging Gavin Grimm’s victory in lower courts, in his lawsuit over the right to use the restroom in his school,” the American Civil Liberties Union said on Twitter. “This is the third time in recent years that SCOTUS has allowed appeals court decisions in support of trans students to remain.”

Opponents of the ruling took the court to task in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, laying out arguments that could be used again in any future challenges.

“The court below revealed its bias and favoritism for plaintiff-respondent Grimm and hostility to the School Board and all those who defended its decisions to accommodate Grimm in other ways than were demanded,” the brief reads. “The Court below immediately adopted the terminology of referring to biological female Grimm with male pronouns, indicating its pre-supposition that a person can change sexes. It referred to biological sex as “assigned sex” as if it existed only arbitrarily in the mind of a physician. For the statutory term ‘sex’ it employed the word ‘gender,’ which unlike ‘sex,’ has no fixed meaning. It also exhibited religious animus, describing a former lesbian who left that lifestyle when she became a Christian by including that among “ugly” comments opposing
special rights to Grimm. As Judge Niemeyer explained, the panel opinion revealed that it was written ‘to effect policy rather than simply apply law.'”




- Advertisement -

Related Articles

Stay Connected

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles