On September 10, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to halt a lower court ruling that permits a female student identifying as male to use boys’ restrooms at school, effectively defying a South Carolina state law that prohibits such access.
In its ruling regarding South Carolina v. Doe, the Supreme Court issued a decision without elaborating on the reasoning behind it.
The ruling clarifies that it does not address the legal merits of the ongoing dispute, but rather adheres to the standards for obtaining emergency relief.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch expressed their dissent, although they did not provide reasons for their stance.
The emergency application submitted to the Supreme Court on August 28 sought to pause an injunction from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an order on August 12. This order mandates a Berkeley County school to allow John Doe, a transgender male, to utilize boys’ restrooms.
South Carolina’s appeal asked the Supreme Court to block this ruling while the state’s legal challenge is ongoing.
Notably, the injunction has not nullified the existing state law requiring public school restrooms to be designated by sex. It has, however, created a specific exception for the student in question.
Prior to the Fourth Circuit’s decision, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel declined to grant Doe a full reprieve from the law.
Given that the Supreme Court plans to review cases related to transgender individuals’ participation in sports, the matter is expected to return to the district court for further proceedings once those cases reach a conclusion.
Judge Gergel characterized the legal situation as “plainly unsettled and in flux,” a sentiment that echoes broader societal debates about gender identity and public policy.
Two pivotal cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., are currently navigating the complexities of transgender athletes competing in sports designated for women. These cases arise amidst a backdrop of states enacting laws that prohibit such participation, prompting legal challenges framed around constitutional grounds and Title IX’s mandate against sex-based discrimination in federally funded education.
The Supreme Court aims to consider both cases during its upcoming session beginning in October, although the future trajectory of these cases remains uncertain.
In the case of Little v. Hecox, Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman from Idaho, recently sought to withdraw their case against the state’s prohibition on male athletes in female sports, citing disproportionate distraction from their academic goals.
Idaho officials are resisting this withdrawal request, with the Supreme Court allowing the state until September 26 to respond.
South Carolina’s application pointed out that adherence to state law is a precondition for public school district funding—mandating public school restrooms to be designated for one sex only.
Doe’s lawsuit contends that this law’s restroom provisions infringe upon their constitutional rights.
In a statement following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Ellen Weaver, South Carolina’s Superintendent of Education, argued that the law is rooted in “biological reality,” asserting its necessity for safeguarding the dignity and privacy of all students.
Contrasting this, Doe’s attorney, Alexandra Brodsky of Public Justice in Washington, lauded the Supreme Court’s decision as a reaffirmation that transgender students should not be seen as threats but as members of the educational community striving to learn under oftentimes harsh conditions.
South Carolina’s Attorney General Alan Wilson, conveying disappointment following the ruling, expressed his conviction to continue contesting the decision at the Fourth Circuit and possibly all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Contributions to this report were made by Sam Dorman and Stacy Robinson.
If you found this article insightful, please consider supporting independent journalism
From our humble beginnings in a basement in Atlanta 25 years ago, The Epoch Times has grown to provide award-winning, fact-based journalism to millions across the United States.
Over these years, our journalists have faced threats, arrest, and assault, yet we remain steadfast in our commitment to independent reporting, free from external influence.
We invite you to take advantage of a limited-time offer: just $1 per week to join the community celebrating the spirit of independent news.
