Decision of Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appels said Indiana must allow transgender students to use school bathroom consistent with their gender identity – ACLU calls it a “victory” for transgender rights. //

These three points are each important:

First, the Seventh Circuit Order, as Bloomberg points out, merely affirmed a preliminary injunction saying that it was “likely” that the student would win her case. Now the case goes back to the Indiana federal trial-level court for further litigation and trial. The school district could still win that case, at trial or on appeal of the trial results.

Second, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling is inherently weak because it relied on Bostock. In that case, as Bloomberg correctly points out, the Supreme court held for the first time that Title VII employment discrimination claims could be brought by transgender employees. But what Bloomberg omits to say is that Bostock expressly held that its ruling did not apply to any other transgender situation. //

So to the extent the Seventh Circuit relied on Bostock, it was mistaken to do so.

Third, Bloomberg points out that in a similar case in Virginia where the Fourth Circuit backed the transgender student, the Supreme Court also declined to review the case, making this the second time the Court has declined to review such a case.

But there is hope!

That is because there is a definite conflict, or “circuit split,” in how different U.S. Courts of Appeals handle this type of case. //

the Court may be sensing the tremendous turmoil across the country regarding the rights of “transgender” students, both in the bathroom context but more importantly in the school sports context, and the Court may well be waiting for an appropriate time and case to grant review and weigh in on these critical issues. //

sidwhite in reply to sidwhite. | January 17, 2024 at 11:07 am
Reading further I see that this is a rejection of having a hearing on the temporary order rather than a court decision.