Amy Howe

Jul 26 2016

Virginia student urges Court to stay out of transgender bathroom dispute

A Virginia school board has “utterly failed” to show that it will suffer lasting harm if “G.G.,” a seventeen-year-old transgender student, is allowed to use the boys’ restroom until the Supreme Court can rule on the school board’s request to review the dispute on the merits, attorneys for the student told the Court in a filing today. Earlier this month, the Gloucester County school board had asked the Court to block both a federal district court’s preliminary order requiring the board to permit G.G. to use the boys’ restroom and an earlier ruling by a federal appeals court; Chief Justice John G. Roberts had instructed G.G.’s attorneys to respond to the board’s request by tomorrow afternoon. (I covered the case and the board’s filing in a post for this blog.)

The very purpose of a stay is to avoid irreversible harm, wrote G.G.’s legal team, headed by Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union. This means, the attorneys argued, that a stay should be denied when – as here – there is no irreversible harm. G.G.’s team emphasized that the scope of the district court’s temporary order is in fact quite narrow: it only applies to G.G., it applies only to the boys’ restrooms, and it “applies only at Gloucester High School,” where G.G. is about to start his senior year. G.G. and his attorneys dismiss the board’s concerns about the possible effects of the district court’s order on other students at the school. If male students are uncomfortable using the boys’ restroom when G.G. is there, they contended, they can always use one of the three new single-user restrooms installed at the school. On the other hand, they counter, G.G. “experiences painful urinary tract infections and daily psychological harm as a result of the” board’s policy, because he tries to avoid using the restroom at all while he is at school.
Beyond the lack of irreparable harm, G.G.’s legal team adds, the board’s request to halt the lower courts’ rulings cannot meet the other basic criteria that the Court normally looks for when deciding whether to grant a stay. There is currently no division among the lower courts on the questions presented by G.G.’s case, they say. And they contend that there is no reason to believe that four Justices will vote to grant review on the merits – particularly when the Court just passed up the same question in another case less than three months ago – much less that five Justices will vote to reverse the decision below.

The Chief Justice can rule on the school board’s request on his own, or he could refer the application to the whole Court. Even if the Court does not step in now to block the lower courts’ rulings, though, the issue of transgender bathrooms could be back before the Justices again soon, after either a final ruling in this case or decisions in other cases pending around the country that raise similar issues.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies