Supreme Court Won’t Hear Transgender Rights Case, Yet

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

The Supreme Court was scheduled to review a transgender rights case originally filed in Virginia against the Gloucester County School Board which prohibited transgender students from using a bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify as, but then the Trump regime made a move.

The Trump miseducation and injustice departments withdrew federal guidance stating that transgender rights are protected under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

Federal courts could still rule that transgender rights are protected, but the Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the 4th Circuit Court and instructed them to review the case without federal guidance.

The justices sent the case involving transgender high school student Gavin Grimm back to the same U.S. appeals court that last year ruled in Grimm's favor, with the dispute centering on a federal anti-discrimination law, a constitutional issue and the Trump administration's Feb. 22 action. [...]

Grimm, 17, was born female and identifies as male. Grimm, due to graduate from high school in June, sued the Gloucester County School Board to win the right to use the public school's boys' bathroom. Grimm argued the school's refusal violated a federal anti-discrimination law called Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The 4th Circuit did, in fact, rule that the school board's violation of transgender rights was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We obviously won't know for certain until a new ruling is issued in the coming months, but I assume the court will reach the same conclusion that it did last year. The retraction of federal guidelines should have no bearing on the constitutional question and the 4th Circuit has been fairly reliable in this regard. The 4th Circuit also shredded North Carolina's voter ID law for similar reasons.

  • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

    Well, yay, the courts are giving the right answers, there are a few problems here.

    A) The Red Shirts are going to use this to bitch and moan about activist judges. I hate to give them the ammunition.

    B) Trump is going to have the opportunity to appoint a lot of judges including at least one supreme court justice. Those same judges we’re applauding right now could be replaced with decidedly less friendly judges soon. And they can roll back all the wins from the last few years.

    • Christopher Foxx

      A) The Red Shirts are going to use this to bitch and moan about activist judges. I hate to give them the ammunition.

      My first reaction to that is a resounding “So?” The wingnuts are going to bitch and moan no matter what happens. And worrying that the bullies and moons are going to react badly is no reason to consider even for a moment not having courts give the right answers.

      On the contrary, it’s all the more reason for courts to keep giving the right answers and doing so very definitively.

      And for your B, Trumps going to have an opportunity to appoint judges regardless of how the current judges rule. Your B seems to be suggesting that the current judges should, what?, rule differently now because there will be other judges later? That would be insane.

      • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

        You seem to be misreading what I’m saying here, or inferring a lot that was never implied.

        B) I think the courts should continue doing exactly what they’re doing. I am happy they’re giving the right answers and building up legal precedents.

        That said, I worry that Trump is going to be able to roll back a lot of it via his appointees. Not that we’re in the position to make law right now, but the problem with case law is that it’s relatively easy to overturn – especially when you control the Supreme Court.

        Put clearer: my concern is that all these wins might turn out to be only temporary.