Amy Howe

Dec 7 2016

Court extends briefing schedule in transgender case

Today the Supreme Court announced a new briefing schedule for Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., the case of a transgender student who identifies as a boy and wants to be able to use the boys’ bathroom at his Virginia high school. The revised schedule extends the time for each side to file its main merits brief by at least a month. Under the original schedule prescribed by the court’s rules, the main merits brief for the Gloucester County School Board, which has asked the justices to reverse a lower-court ruling ordering the board to allow the student to use the boys’ bathroom, would have been due on December 12, with the brief for G.G., as the student is known in the Supreme Court litigation, coming 30 days later, on January 11. But the school board’s brief will now be due on January 3, with G.G.’s brief following on February 23.

The extended schedule has at least two consequences for the case. First, although the case would likely have been slated for oral argument in the court’s February sitting under the original briefing schedule, under the revised schedule it would not be slated for oral argument until the court’s March sitting (which begins on March 20) or possibly even the April sitting (which begins on April 17) – increasing the chances that a ninth justice may have taken the bench by the time the case is argued.

Second, the schedule change also means that the federal government’s position in the case will be determined by the Trump, rather than Obama, administration. Deference to the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal law has been a central feature of G.G.’s argument, and it was the basis for the lower court’s ruling in G.G.’s favor. The Trump administration will not take office in time to file a brief supporting the school board, but it could nonetheless reverse course before G.G. files its brief. Such a change could substantially alter the arguments that G.G. makes and the justices consider. Indeed, if the Trump administration does rescind the existing Department of Education letter or issue its own guidance on the question, the justices could opt to send the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of that new guidance.

(The blog is grateful to Lyle Denniston for flagging this change to the briefing schedule for us.)

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