This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/federal-appeals-court-sides-with-trangender-teen-says-bathroom-case-can-go-forward/2016/04/19/6a873b88-f76b-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Federal appeals court sides with transgender teen, says bathroom case can go forward Federal appeals court sides with transgender teen, says bathroom case can go forward
(about 4 hours later)
A federal appeals court in Richmond has sided with a transgender high school student, saying that he can proceed with his lawsuit arguing that his school board’s decision to ban him from the boys’ bathroom is discriminatory. A federal appeals court in Richmond has ruled that a transgender high school student who was born as a female can sue his school board for discrimination because it banned him from the boys’ bathroom.
In backing high school junior Gavin Grimm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deferred to the U.S. Education Department’s interpretation of policies that give transgender students access to the bathrooms that match their gender identities rather than their biological sex. The federal department has said that denying transgender students access to the school bathrooms of their choice is a violation of Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at schools that receive federal funding. In backing high school junior Gavin Grimm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deferred to the U.S. Education Department’s position that transgender students should have access to the bathrooms that match their gender identities rather than being forced to use bathrooms that match their biological sex. The department has said that requiring transgender students to use a bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex amounts to a violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination at schools that receive federal funding.
“It’s a complete vindication for the education department’s interpretation of Title IX,” said Joshua Block, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Grimm. “It’s a complete vindication for the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX,” said Joshua Block, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Grimm.
[Read the 4th Circuit court’s opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board] [Read the 4th Circuit opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board]
In a 2-to-1 decision, the 4th Circuit reversed a lower court ruling, saying that court had used the wrong legal standard in denying the student a preliminary injunction that would have allowed him to use the boys’ bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Va. Judge Henry Floyd, who wrote the majority opinion, also ruled that the boy’s discrimination lawsuit could move forward. The appeals court remanded the case to the lower court to be reheard. In a 2-to-1 decision, the 4th Circuit ordered a lower court to rehear the student’s claims that the Gloucester County, Va., school board’s bathroom policies — which restrict transgender students to using a separate unisex bathroom — violate federal law. The judges also ruled that the lower court should reconsider a request that would have allowed Grimm to use the boys’ bathroom at Gloucester High School while the case is pending.
The 4th Circuit is the highest court to weigh in on the question of whether bathroom restrictions constitute sex discrimination, and the decision could have widespread implications on how the courts interpret the issue as civil rights activists and local politicians battle over school bathrooms. The 4th Circuit is the highest court to weigh in on the question of whether bathroom restrictions constitute sex discrimination, and the decision could have widespread implications on how U.S. courts interpret the issue as civil rights activists and local politicians battle over bathrooms.
“The Department’s interpretation resolves ambiguity by providing that in the case of a transgender individual using a sex-segregated facility, the individual’s sex as male or female is to be generally determined by reference to the student’s gender identity,” the court wrote. The question of which bathrooms transgender people can use has become a divisive political issue in several states, emerging as an emotional fight in South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi and Virginia. In North Carolina, a law banning local protections for gay and transgender people — a measure centering on bathrooms — has sparked protests, boycotts and calls for an immediate repeal.
A U.S. District Court judge in Virginia last year denied Grimm’s request for a preliminary injunction — which was backed by a statement of interest from the Justice Department — ruling that the privacy rights of other students outweigh the hardship Grimm endures by having to use a separate bathroom. That judge also granted the Gloucester County school board’s motion to dismiss the suit outright, a decision that the 4th Circuit overturned Tuesday. Public bathrooms have become the latest battleground in the fight for LGBT rights, with conservative activists and some state lawmakers pushing restrictions that prevent transgender people from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity. Activists have used the bathroom debate as a venue for rolling back broader civil rights protections, arguing that allowing transgender people into the supposedly safe spaces of single-sex bathrooms creates dangerous scenarios and violates privacy and common sense.
The 4th Circuit judges wrote that interpretations of federal discrimination policies should be left to politicians, in this case the Obama administration’s Education Department. The court ruled that Grimm has an argument that his school board violated his rights based on those interpretations, but the court did not decide whether transgender students faced discrimination in Gloucester, leaving that question to the lower court.
“At the heart of this appeal is whether Title IX requires schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity,” the court’s opinion said. “We conclude that the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation . . . as it relates to restroom access by transgender individuals, is . . . to be accorded controlling weight in this case.”
LGBT advocates celebrated Tuesday’s court decision and were hopeful that it would help turn back the tide of efforts by state lawmakers to get bathroom restrictions on the books. The Human Rights Campaign, which tracks bills related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, counted 14 states that debated bills that would restrict bathroom usage for transgender students.
[Transgender students’ access to bathrooms is at front of LGBT rights battle]
“I think this is going to be a wake-up call for legislators,” said Peter Renn, an attorney for an LGBT advocacy group. He said he believes that lawmakers contemplating bathroom restrictions for transgender people are “essentially on a collision course with federal law and federal courts.”
Lawyer Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, which has backed efforts to roll back LGBT protections for students, took a more cautious view, noting that the judges opted to send the case back down to the district court.
“I don’t think this case has any definitive answer, and it’s not a definitive ruling on what Title IX says,” Staver said.
[Va. transgender student’s case could have national implications][Va. transgender student’s case could have national implications]
In the wake of the legalization of same-sex marriage, public bathrooms have become the latest battleground in the fight for LGBT rights, with conservative activists and some state lawmakers pushing restrictions that prevent transgender people from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity rather than their biological sex. Activists also have used the bathroom debate as a venue for rolling back broader civil rights protections for gay and transgender people, arguing that those protections create dangerous scenarios — in the supposedly safe spaces of single-sex public bathrooms — that violate privacy and common sense. The issue has been at the center of state-level debates in recent months, most notably in North Carolina, where Gov. Pat McCrory (R) recently signed into law a ban on local government measures that protect gay and transgender people from discrimination; he focused specifically on the bathroom issue in arguing that the ban was necessary to prevent local governments from allowing “a man to use a woman’s bathroom, shower or locker room.” A transgender university student and employee already have sued to overturn the new law and the 4th Circuit’s ruling could bolster their argument that bathroom restrictions are discriminatory, Renn said.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) recently signed into law a ban on local government measures that protect gay and transgender people from discrimination; he focused specifically on the bathroom issue in arguing that the ban was necessary to prevent local governments from allowing “a man to use a woman’s bathroom, shower or locker room.” The North Carolina law has sparked protests and economic boycotts in the state. Duke University leaders this week publicly condemned “in the strongest possible terms” the North Carolina law and called for its repeal.
That law has sparked protests and economic boycotts in the state. Duke University leaders this week publicly condemned “in the strongest possible terms” the North Carolina law and called for its repeal.
[Duke leaders call for repeal of North Carolina’s ‘bathroom law’][Duke leaders call for repeal of North Carolina’s ‘bathroom law’]
A new law in Mississippi allows schools to require students to dress and use the bathroom in accordance with the gender on their birth certificate. It also extends broad protections to business owners and religious organizations for refusing service to gay and transgender people based on their “sincerely held religious beliefs” or “moral conviction.” McCrory said in a video statement posted online Tuesday that he disagreed with the 4th Circuit’s ruling, calling it a “bad precedent.”
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) vetoed a bill that would restrict transgender public school students from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity, arguing that schools were best equipped to handle accommodations for transgender students.
Voters in Houston last year voted down a law that would have extended nondiscrimination protections to gay and transgender people, and a new law in Mississippi allows schools to require students to dress and use the bathroom in accordance with the gender on their birth certificate.
The case in Virginia centers on Grimm, now a junior at Gloucester High School. Grimm, who was born with female anatomy, came out as male to his classmates in high school and began using the boys’ bathroom his sophomore year. Seven weeks later, angry parents raised concerns with the school board, prompting members to pass a policy that requires students to use school bathrooms corresponding with their “biological gender” and indicates that transgender students should use a separate, unisex bathroom.The case in Virginia centers on Grimm, now a junior at Gloucester High School. Grimm, who was born with female anatomy, came out as male to his classmates in high school and began using the boys’ bathroom his sophomore year. Seven weeks later, angry parents raised concerns with the school board, prompting members to pass a policy that requires students to use school bathrooms corresponding with their “biological gender” and indicates that transgender students should use a separate, unisex bathroom.
Grimm sued the school board in federal court, arguing that the new rule violated Title IX, the federal law that bars gender discrimination in the nation’s schools. He also asked for a preliminary injunction to allow him to use the boys’ bathroom while his case proceeded. A U.S. District Court judge denied his request, and Grimm’s attorneys appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments on the case in late February. Grimm sued the school board in federal court, arguing that the new rule violated Title IX, the federal law that bars gender discrimination in the nation’s schools. He also asked for a preliminary injunction to allow him to use the boys’ bathroom while his case proceeded.
[Transgender student files lawsuit against schools over bathrooms][Transgender student files lawsuit against schools over bathrooms]
Transgender students say that using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity is important for them — and others — to feel comfortable. Transgender male students, for example, often dress and appear as boys, and it could generally raise alarms if they were to use a girls’ bathroom. They also say that having to use a bathroom that doesn’t match their gender identity, or having to go to a separate bathroom, can have negative psychological effects. Troy M. Andersen, chair of the Gloucester County School Board, and David Corrigan, the attorney representing the school board, did not responded to requests for comment Tuesday.
Grimm has said that the debate made him the subject of ridicule within his community, adding anguish to his adolescence, already a challenging time for many teens. Transgender students say that using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity is important for them — and others — to feel comfortable. A transgender boy who appears male may generally raise alarms if he is forced to use the girls’ bathroom.
Grimm has said that the debate made him the subject of ridicule within his community.
“Matters like identity and self-consciousness are something that most kids grapple with in this age range,” Grimm said in January. “When you’re a transgender teenager, these things are often very potent. I feel humiliated and dysphoric every time I’m forced to use a separate facility.”“Matters like identity and self-consciousness are something that most kids grapple with in this age range,” Grimm said in January. “When you’re a transgender teenager, these things are often very potent. I feel humiliated and dysphoric every time I’m forced to use a separate facility.”
But the decision’s legal implications are far broader than just Grimm’s case, as it could shape other court battles, including one in North Carolina, where a transgender university student and employee already have sued to overturn the new law there. Other judges outside the 4th Circuit, which includes North Carolina, could look to the court’s ruling in future legal fights because it is the highest court so far to weigh in on the legality of bathroom restrictions for transgender students. In a dissent, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit said the ruling “completely tramples on all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes.”
[Liberal groups sue North Carolina over transgender bathroom law] “This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect,” Niemeyer wrote.
The Obama administration has taken the position that such restrictions for students are a violation of Title IX, and officials in Washington have warned school districts that they risk losing federal funding if they fail to accommodate transgender students. Following a civil rights complaint, the U.S. Education Department found that an Illinois school district violated Title IX when it barred a transgender girl from a girls’ locker room.
But lower-court rulings have gone against the Obama administration’s position, including in Grimm’s case, when a district judge ruled that Title IX protects students from discrimination based on biological sex, not gender identity.
A U.S. District Court judge in Pennsylvania ruled against a transgender man who was convicted of trespassing and was expelled from a public university for using the men’s locker room there. In her March 2015 decision, Judge Kim Gibson wrote that barring the student from the men’s locker room was not discriminatory.
Matt Sharp, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which backed the school board in a friend-of-the-court brief and has supported bathroom restrictions elsewhere, said he expects the U.S. Supreme Court to eventually take up the question of whether bathroom restrictions constitute discrimination in this case or another.
“So much is at stake,” Sharp said. “You’re talking about schools across the country, billions of dollars of federal funding.”
Nationally, public officials have watched the Virginia case closely. McCrory and Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) submitted friend-of-the-court briefs, arguing that schools can create bathroom restrictions for transgender students without running afoul of Title IX.
The case ultimately could affect how future legislation takes shape. The Human Rights Campaign, which tracks bills related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, counted 14 states that debated bills that would restrict bathroom usage for transgender students, including Virginia, where a state lawmaker said his bill was voted down because lawmakers wanted to see how the 4th Circuit ruled before they proceeded.
[S.D. governor vetoes bill restricting transgender students’ restroom access]
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) vetoed a bill that would restrict transgender public school students from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity, arguing that schools were best equipped to handle accommodations for transgender students. He also pointed to the Obama administration’s assertion that such restrictions constitute sex discrimination and said the state mandate could open up schools to litigation.
Voters in Houston last year voted down a law that would have extended nondiscrimination protections to gay and transgender people after opponents tagged the ordinance “the bathroom ordinance” and rallied around the slogan: “No men in women’s bathrooms.”
Read more:Read more:
As a transgender high school student, going to the bathroom is scaryAs a transgender high school student, going to the bathroom is scary
Transgender students’ access to bathrooms is at front of LGBT rights battleTransgender students’ access to bathrooms is at front of LGBT rights battle
Debate rages on over transgender elementary school studentDebate rages on over transgender elementary school student
For transgender teens and teachers, acceptance could be two words awayFor transgender teens and teachers, acceptance could be two words away