The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that separating bathrooms based on sex doesn't violate the Constitution or Title IX, a decision with repercussions for the nationwide debate over transgender issues.
The ruling is likely to have widespread consequences in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
The case, Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cty, revolved around whether or not St. Johns County School Board in Florida violated a transgender student's rights by prohibiting the student, a biological female who identifies as a boy, from using the boys' bathroom at Allen D. Nease High School. The court ruled en banc that the United States has a long tradition of segregating certain spaces, such as bathrooms, on the basis of sex, without falling afoul of either the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. As such, the student's rights weren't violated.
"Separating school bathrooms based on biological sex passes constitutional muster and comports with Title IX," Judge Barbara Lagoa, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote for the court. Four judges appointed by Democrats dissented from the opinion. --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Photo: Luis Santana/Zuma Press |
Decision rejects legal challenge by transgender student and potentially sets stage for Supreme Court review
A federal appeals court ruled a Florida school district can require that students use bathrooms according to their biological sex, rejecting a legal challenge by a transgender student and teeing up the issue for potential review by the Supreme Court.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the St. Johns County school board’s decision to segregate bathrooms by sex passes constitutional muster because it advances a legitimate objective of protecting students’ privacy and shielding their developing bodies from the opposite sex.
“A policy can lawfully classify on the basis of biological sex without unlawfully discriminating on the basis of transgender status,” Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote for the majority.
Dissenting judges said Florida transgender student Andrew Adams was discriminated against on the basis of sex by being forced to use a bathroom that didn’t conform with his identity.
“The bathroom policy categorically deprives transgender students of a benefit that is categorically provided to all cisgender students—the option to use the restroom matching one’s gender identity,” Judge Jill Pryor wrote in her dissent.
All of the judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, while the dissenters were all appointed by Democrats. The two camps also disagreed about whether a ruling for Mr. Adams would have led to broader consequences for sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms and sports. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment