Appeals Court Sends Transgender School Bathroom Case Back to Lower Court

Today the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals canceled oral arguments and sent back the case involving Gavin Grimm, a girl who wants to “identify” as a boy and use restrooms for boys. The case is G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. The lower court is likely to dismiss the case because Grimm has graduated.

The Court of Appeals had previously scheduled arguments for September in Gavin Grimm’s case against the Gloucester County School Board. However, because Grimm recently graduated, this federal lawsuit over a girl’s demand to use the boy’s bathroom at her high school is being sent back to a lower court. Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Judith Reisman and the Center for Child Protection Institute in the case.

Gavin Grimm, the student who brought the lawsuit, is a biological girl who now says she subjectively “identifies” as a “boy.” When Grimm began using the boys’ restroom, parents complained. Then the school board adopted a policy requiring students to use either the restroom that corresponds with their biological gender or a private, single-stall restroom.

The Supreme Court previously set aside the decision by the appeals court which ruled that the federal law known as Title IX should be interpreted to include “gender identity” and that a girl who “identifies” as a boy can use the boy’s restroom. The case was sent back to the court of appeals after President Trump rescinded Obama’s transgender guidance that schools had to adopt a policy allowing students to use the restroom of their “self-identity.”

“The federal law does not allow persons to subjectively think, and therefore legally become, the opposite of their biological sex,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Giving legal credence to a biological impossibility would undermine the law and cause chaos and significant harm. Your DNA is fixed at birth. You cannot change your sex or your race from your hard-wired biology. Such a legal fiction would undermine the purpose of the law,” said Staver.

Source: Liberty Counsel