States Advocate for School Bathroom Policies at Supreme Court
Recently, 23 states presented an Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) urging the adoption of policies in South Carolina that mandate the use of school restrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex.
Leading the effort, Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Todd Lokita initiated the filing, requesting SCOTUS to lift an injunction imposed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This injunction had overturned laws restricting access to private facilities in schools for students identifying as girls.
The Amicus Brief contends that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling would compromise student privacy during sensitive moments.
This situation ties back to the 2020 Supreme Court case of Grimm v. Gloucester County Board of Education, where a transgender student, Gavin Grimm, challenged policies banning students from using restrooms corresponding to their gender identity. The ruling highlighted protections against gender-based discrimination under the 1972 Education Amendments and Title IX.
The brief criticized the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, claiming it imposed policies that potentially jeopardize the privacy and safety of students.
“The Fourth Circuit effectively expanded the Grimm decision, undermining regulations on gender transition procedures and sports team classifications,” the document states.
Moreover, the brief referenced later court decisions that contradicted the prior 2020 ruling. In one case, United States v. Skulmetti, the court upheld Attorney General Johnson Thomas Skulmetti’s support for Tennessee Senate Bill 1.
“Children should feel safe using the restroom, changing in locker rooms, and participating in sports without worrying about privacy,” Lokita stated. “Schools should not mix boys and girls in these sensitive spaces. We will keep fighting against this.”
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson also played a role in submitting the Amicus Brief, announcing his intentions in a statement on Friday.
“South Carolina’s law is about ensuring the privacy and safety of all students,” Wilson commented, criticizing the Fourth Circuit’s decision as a move against the public’s will for the sake of one student. “This raises concerns about the rights and safety of all students. Where does it end?”
He further emphasized that the case isn’t just about one school district but about whether judges can override the decisions of parents and lawmakers concerning student privacy in schools.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, Wilson maintained his commitment to advocating for policies that prioritize children’s safety and privacy in school facilities.
“We will collaborate with lawmakers, educators, and parents to ensure students have access to spaces that respect their privacy and developmental needs. This is a fundamental duty for school administrators and policymakers,” he said.
