Advertisement

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Indiana School’s Appeal Regarding Transgender Bathroom Order

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


The U.S. Supreme Court has denied an appeal filed by an Indiana public school district regarding a motion to uphold a policy that limits students’ access to bathrooms based on their biological gender.

The rejection comes after a lower federal court found that the school’s policy was a violation of the constitutional rights of students and did not comply with federal anti-discrimination laws by barring transgender students from using locker rooms and bathrooms that align with their chosen gender identity.

The motion was filed by lawyers on behalf of the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville.

The district’s legal team had pleaded with the high court to “preserve the autonomy of school boards to make decisions,” Fox News reported.

Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, and the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law conferred protections on a student, “A.C.,” according to a 2023 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Advertisement

The nation’s highest court issued its decision without comment. In recent years, the Supreme Court has largely avoided the contentious issue of transgender rights.

An aide to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who had previously sided with the school district in its lawsuit, was critical of the Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene.

“The Supreme Court did not take a necessary opportunity to provide clarity, particularly with such a split among the appellate courts on this issue. It makes little sense for SCOTUS not to resolve the difference in federal cases, but because of this split, children in other parts of this country will be properly protected,” the spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“Unfortunately, for now, our schools will be forced to allow transgender students to use whichever bathroom they feel corresponds to the gender identity they’ve picked to use on that day. We will continue our fight so regular, common-sense Hoosier parents can raise their children free of this toxic transanity,” the spokesperson added.

In recent years, GOP lawmakers across the country have pushed for policies that protect the privacy rights of the majority of students and individuals who do not identify as transgender, but they have largely been unsuccessful.

However, they have had more success in barring certain books and materials that feature inappropriate sexual content from being accessed by younger children in school libraries, as well as blocking minors from being able to access medical procedures that permanently alter their gender makeup.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the high court could be on the verge of issuing rulings that would severely limit the power of presidents to circumvent the will of Congress with executive orders to federal agencies.

For example, the court has agreed to hear cases that question the constitutionality of a process federal agencies use to obtain funds that are not subject to the appropriations process or regular oversight by Congress.

The court will also consider cases that question the practice of federal courts agreeing with how agencies interpret the laws they are supposed to enforce.

Test your skills with this Quiz!

Additionally, the court agreed to hear a case that might reinstate the jury trial in a category of civil cases that are currently solely in the hands of judges employed by administrative agencies.

Also, Biden’s plans to “tax the rich” could be scrapped soon after the high court ruled earlier this year that his $430 billion-plus student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional. That debate centers on Biden’s frequently expressed desire for a wealth tax and whether it could be implemented.

According to the SCOTUS Blog, the central question in the case is: “Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.” That amendment allowed the Legislative Branch to legally impose an income tax for the first time in the country’s history.

Advertisement