In a recent legal challenge, lawyers representing a 14-year-old transgender boy known as John Doe are urging the Supreme Court to uphold a federal appeals court ruling that allows the student to use the boys’ bathroom in a South Carolina school district. This case comes amidst controversy surrounding a state law mandating that students use bathrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, a measure first introduced in the 2024-25 budget appropriations bill and subsequently re-enacted in the 2025-26 bill. The challenge raises important questions about gender discrimination and equal protection rights under federal law.
The contested law stipulates that non-complying school districts may face substantial financial penalties, including the loss of 25% of allocated state funds. Doe previously faced suspension and the threat of expulsion for using the boys’ bathroom during the 2024-25 school year, prompting his parents to switch to online schooling. He returned to in-person schooling for the 2025-26 year, thus prompting the legal proceedings.
Doe’s legal team filed a lawsuit citing violations of federal civil rights laws and the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The initial case was paused when the Supreme Court agreed to hear West Virginia v. B.P.J., wherein the 4th Circuit had previously invalidated a state law excluding transgender girls from girls’ sports teams on the grounds of sex-based discrimination.
The panel of the 4th Circuit Court aligned their decision with similar past rulings, such as Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, asserting that barring Doe from the boys’ bathroom would likely breach both federal law and the Constitution. The state challenged this position, seeking intervention from the Supreme Court, and referenced a recent ruling, United States v. Skrmetti, claiming it may provide grounds for overturning the 4th Circuit’s decision.
The state’s argument emphasized a broader judicial trend endorsing bathroom policies based on biological sex, identifying the 4th Circuit’s precedents as outliers that could be overturned. Conversely, Doe’s attorneys argued that the state’s appeal failed to substantiate a significant injury warranting the emergency relief sought. They emphasized the importance of upholding the injunction, enabling Doe to safely and privately attend to his needs at school, underscoring that the broader enforcement of the contested law remains intact throughout South Carolina, limiting the immediate issue to the circumstances of one student.
For further in-depth details, read the full coverage on SCOTUSblog.