High court sidesteps transgender debate in schools for now

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has opted not to hear an appeal from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville (MSD), effectively ending its legal battle.

The local school district hoped to challenge a lower court ruling that said a transgender student in the school district must be allowed to use the restroom that aligns with the student’s self-identified gender. 

The SCOTUS announced Jan. 16 it would not hear the school district’s challenge to the Seventh District Court of Appeals, which ruled in August 2023 that the district must accommodate the student’s preferred gender. 

Later that month, the school board voted to appeal that court’s decision, hoping the Supreme Court of the United States would settle the matter.

“The MSD of Martinsville School Board of Trustees chose to appeal the Seventh Circuit ruling because there is disagreement among federal courts around the country on whether federal law mandates certain actions or whether school boards have discretion to enact policies addressing who may use what facilities,” school board member and former board president Jacque Deckard said last fall in an emailed statement.

But the SCOTUS will not be settling the issue, and last week’s decision means the end of the road for MSD’s legal options. 

On the heels of the court’s decision last week, MSD superintendent Eric Bowlen said in a prepared statement he was “deeply disappointed” by the decision that leaves “school districts across the country in disarray.”

“As the education system continues to evolve rapidly, local school boards must be empowered to navigate sensitive emerging issues with discretion to serve the best interests of students,” he said in his statement. 

Case history

The case against the school district goes back to December 2021, when a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Indiana Legal Services on behalf of a then seventh-grade student at John R. Wooden Middle School — who was born a female but identifies as a male — and the student’s mother.

According to the complaint, the middle school failed to accommodate the student’s male gender identity by not allowing the student to use the boys restroom, join the boys soccer team or address the student using male pronouns.

The suit claims the school violated Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and was enacted in 1972, spearheaded by U.S. Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana.

At the time, Bayh explained the legislation was put forth to fight against “the continuation of corrosive and unjustified discrimination against women in the American educational system.”

In recent years, however, proponents of the transgender movement have used Title IX to argue that transgender students should be covered under those same protections based on their identified gender, not necessarily their biological sex.

The school district, however, argued that Title IX is, in fact, based on a biological understanding — or “the genetic sense” — of two genders due to the common understanding and application at the time Title IX was made into law.

What’s more, the school district contended that “school boards — locally elected representatives of our communities — should be afforded discretion in making these decisions,” it stated in its August 2023 resolution.

The 2021 suit also claimed the school district violated the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First ratified in 1868 on the heels of the Civil War and traditionally used to prevent racial discrimination, the Equal Protections Clause is now often used in gender-based cases. 

On April 29, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued its preliminary injunction, ruling in favor of the student and the student’s mother while denying the school district’s defense and ordering the district to allow the student “use of the male restrooms and … treat him as a male student in all respects.”

In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied MSD’s appeal, maintaining the District Court’s decision. 

Last week’s SCOTUS decision, in effect, does the same. 

Local reaction

The ACLU of Indiana, which helped initiate the lawsuit, cheered the Supreme Court’s announcement it wouldn’t weigh in on the case, thereby letting the lower court rulings stand. 

“This case is about the fundamental right of every student to a safe and inclusive learning environment, and the freedom of transgender youth to be themselves,” the organization said in an online statement. “We’re thankful the court allowed this momentous victory for the transgender youth of Indiana to stand.” 

But opponents of the lower court rulings decried the court’s unwillingness to hear the case and clear up the confusion in the lower courts.  

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita came out in staunch support of MSD throughout the court proceedings, and his office was not pleased by last week’s decision. 

“The Supreme Court did not take a necessary opportunity to provide clarity, particularly with such a split among the appellate courts on this issue,” according to a statement issued by the AG’s office. “It makes little sense for SCOTUS not to resolve the difference in federal cases.”

In his statement, Bowlen echoed the sentiment, disappointed the SCOTUS didn’t settle the contradictory rulings in the lower courts.

“Federal courts are hopelessly in conflict over how to decide these issues, and the District hoped that the Supreme Court would have resolved this important conflict,” Bowlen said. “The district will now consult closely with legal counsel to determine appropriate next steps that are both in compliance with the law and what is best for our students and community.”

When reached by phone, MSD school board president Matt Hankins declined to comment on behalf of the locally elected board — a board that has guided the district and made the decisions throughout the case’s journey through the court system, including the decision to appeal in the Seventh District and later, the Supreme Court. He, instead, deferred to Bowlen’s prepared statement. 

“The superintendent’s statement represents the communication from the board and superintendent on behalf of the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville,” Hankins said.

But Martinsville resident Shelley Campbell, who attended the school board meeting last Thursday, offered a comment of her own, giving a word of encouragement to the board. 

“Myself and a lot of people are standing behind the school as it pertains to the transgender issue,” Campbell said. “(I’m) praying for the school and I like the stance MSD is taking.”

The stance MSD has taken, however, is the wrong one in the eye of the courts, and until the SCOTUS decides to weigh in on the issue, transgender students must be accommodated according to their self-identified gender. 

And if the SCOTUS does decide to take up the transgender issue in the future, it would be with different litigants — and MSD would not be one of them. 

~ By Stephen Crane | Reporter | Published January 25, 2024 in The Morgan County Correspondent