Turning back to this for a minute, SCOTUS' decision not to take up this case means that in the 4th Cir. (joining the 7th and 11th) school policies that rely on the sex listed on birth certificates are sex-based classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny.
https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1409508520748326925
The import of this case is that's not going to fly.
This is important bc many school districts have tried to solve trans questions with what they see as a bright-line rule: they'll go with whatever it says on your birth certificate.
This is important bc many school districts have tried to solve trans questions with what they see as a bright-line rule: they'll go with whatever it says on your birth certificate.
(They'll also frequently claim "that's science!" even though it's nothing of the sort.)
The other thing that really came through in this case is how student privacy was deployed against the trans student.
The school said it had an important interest in protecting other boys' privacy in the restrooms.
The school said it had an important interest in protecting other boys' privacy in the restrooms.
But, of course, misconduct in the restroom was still against the rules. And there was utterly no evidence that a trans boy in the restroom was a privacy problem given y'know, stall doors and dividers.
And Judge Wynn, concurring, noted how utterly backward the school's stated privacy interest was.
Under the school's policy, a trans boy with male characteristics, including facial hair, would have to use the girl's restroom (or an alternative room set aside just for him).
Under the school's policy, a trans boy with male characteristics, including facial hair, would have to use the girl's restroom (or an alternative room set aside just for him).
(Back to the maj. op.) One other consequence of note is something that all the circuits are dealing with right now: does the reasoning of Bostock that anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII extend to Title IX?
4th Cir: yup.
4th Cir: yup.
Interestingly, only Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted cert. in this matter. We don't know the position of the other justices. We only know there weren't four votes to grant.
It could be even the conservatives are burned out on this topic after Bostock.
Or it could be (where my money is at) that there isn't a circuit split for SCOTUS to resolve. No need to step in if the circuits all end up in the same, or near the same, place.
Or it could be (where my money is at) that there isn't a circuit split for SCOTUS to resolve. No need to step in if the circuits all end up in the same, or near the same, place.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
