Supreme Court orders Transgender Student Gavin Grimm to use the wrong restroom, for now

Gavin Grimm

Gavin Grimm

Gavin Grimm a transgender male senior will have to use the ladies room, or a staff single stall restroom when he returns to high school this fall.

The supreme court issued a stay yesterday overruling the 4th district appeals court order allowing Grimm to use the men’s room until the lower court could rule on the case. This stay will remain in effect until at least October when it is decided by the supreme court whether it will take the case. The Glouster school district had requested the stay arguing that allowing Grimm to use the men’s room would cause “irreparable harm” and violate the privacy of students.

The court ruled in favor of the school board by a margin of 5-3 with one moderately conservative judge joining the ultra right wing casting the need 5th vote. While it is important to note that this stay is not a ruling on the overall case, it is also important to understand that the action by the supreme court does not bode well for equality.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Virginia filed a lawsuit June 2015 against the Gloucester County School Board for adopting a discriminatory bathroom policy that segregates transgender students from their peers. The policy effectively expels trans students from communal restrooms and requires them to use “alternative private” restroom facilities.

The case was filed on behalf of Gavin Grimm, a transgender male student at Gloucester High School who will begin his senior year this fall. The lawsuit argues the bathroom policy is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and violates Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination by schools.

asked the supreme court to take the case and to instate a stay requiring Grimm to use the restroom that places him at greatest risk.

Buzzfeed reports that the stay will remain in effect until it decides whether to grant the school board’s forthcoming certiorari petition asking the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision. If the court agrees to hear the case, the stay will remain in effect until there is a ruling in the case. If the court decides not to hear the case, the stay will end at that time.

The school board issued a brief statement, noting that it “welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision as the new school year approaches. The Board continues to believe that its resolution of this complex matter fully considered the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system.”

The ACLU, which is representing Grimm, expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s action.
“We are disappointed that the court has issued a stay and that Gavin will have to begin another school year isolated from his peers and stigmatized by the Gloucester County school board just because he’s a boy who is transgender,” ACLU senior staff attorney Joshua Block said in a statement. “We remain hopeful that Gavin will ultimately prevail.”

Previous articleNHS shouldn’t Pander to Transgender Whims says Katie Hopkins
Next articlePope Francis says transgender children are a sin against God the Creator
Kelli, Busey is managing editor at Planet Transgender


  1. Majorana, at the risk of coming across like an annoying school teacher, you sound suspiciously like my mother. Why? Because a good writer knows not assume their readers will understand the meaning of every acronym. There are over one hundred and forty meanings for CRA. One of them is “Civil rights act”, another is “Consumer reporting agency”. So for the benefit of those readers who may not know which one you mean, please refrain from using acronyms on their own, they should always be combined like the examples below.

    CRA (Civil rights act)
    RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) also (Request for Response Action) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

    Thank you for understand that not everyone knows how to read.

    With love… Crayon.

  2. not the same issue. someone paying for insurance practices are one thing. using religion to deny basic rights is another.

    several courts have already been on our side, saying we fall under the CRA, based on INTENT, and SPIRIT of the act, not by word.

    the Restoring Freedom of Religion act, or whatever the actual title is, is bunk. they were NEVER lost. you have the RIGHT to practice your religion, without government interference SO LONG AS IT DOESNT interfere with others rights, or cause harm to others (unfortunately, this has been violated by sanctuary laws in a few states, allowing certain cults of christianity to ignore medical treatment of children, so much so that the graves of children outnumber those of the adults in those areas.

    the other part of religious freedom is that the government will not establish or support a state religion, RE the church of england. they were fleeing that kind of church control, most of our founding fathers, despite the claims otherwise, were NOT christian, but Deists. so the claims we “are/were a christian nation” are complete idiocy. the majority of the population was christian for a long time, not so much anymore, far more people are agnostic or atheist. one of the compromises with churchs to keep their tax exempt status is that they are NOT supposed to be “politically active” so no politicking from the pulpit, or you pay taxes. that has been ignored for too long.

    Tax-Exempt Status
    Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
    – the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
    – net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
    – no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
    – the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
    – the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

  3. What is your opinion of the pitting of the CRA of 1964 against the RFRA + Hobby Lobby? It seems once all of these anti-trans cases are aggregated and put before the Supreme Court, that will be one of the issues they’ll be facing. Wouldn’t the court finding for “religious liberty” in essence mean that anyone could arguably ignore almost any law if they state it violates their sincerely held (for the moment) beliefs? How can a system of law survive such a ruling?

  4. it is a qualified no, they have NOT made a decision yet, but are granting an injunction so that he still has to use a neutral/special bathroom until they either decide to hear it and try it, or NOT to hear it at all. if they decline, then he wins.

  5. Virginia school board permitted to continue barring Gavin Grimm from using the boys’ restroom, in high court’s first ruling on an increasingly contentious topic The supreme court on Wednesday blocked a court order giving a transgender student access to the boys’ bathroom at his Virginia high school, in what is the high court’s first ruling on an increasingly contentious topic.

  6. Now I understand. Apologies I’m not the smartest crayon in the box. When you said “read” the article again, I was distracted because I was right in the middle of writing a text, that’s why I didn’t understand the full picture. Now I do. Thank you for clarifying all of this. Now I’m done I’ll have to tell mother, she’ll be really interested in this. Thank you.

  7. a lot of this is from fear. people fear what they dont understand, and a LOT of religious and political leaders have been pushing WE are a threat, or us having OUR rights is a threat.

    its not true, they have no evidence of their claims it will allow a mass of perverts abusing these rights to attack women.

    on the other hand there are 19 states, and over an additional 225 city and counties that have these laws, and not in one single are has this happened. the crime rate for bathrooms, lockers, etc have had exactly a ZERO percent increase. and some of those jurisdictions have had these laws for up to 20 years. not counting the last 80+ years we have been using the restrooms quietly with no issues. the Conservative/christian fanatics (not all but the fanatical fringes) have been using trumped up claims that trans have assaulted people, but they are all just that, claims by perverts, hoping to get leniency or something. the only real abuse has been by men SENT in by some of these right wing groups, like the public pool locker rooms in Seattle i think it was, and a few other cases, all to prove their point, and all it proved was how perverted these groups are in their own right. The Family Research council, the AFA (the group behind the dude of a boycott of Target) and several others, all of them listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

  8. just so you know , i am a trans woman. but devils advocate here:

    others feel letting him use the boys room is NOT common sense. their reasons are usually specious, but as the law has NOT caught up perfectly yet (despite all the rulings by many courts about title 7 and 11 covering trans persons) they have a legal right to challenge this ruling. it is part of the rule of law. it has worked FOR us more than against us over the years, so while it will make this young man’s school time a bit harder, for now we have to follow this procedural hurdle. hopefully they will refuse to consider it for review, and it will be over, no further appeal is possible if the SCOTUS has declined.

  9. Thank you for your explanation. Regardless, why do we need to go to such stupid lengths as court proceedings just to take a piss. Whatever happened to common sense!

  10. you need to read the article, this is standard court procedure. the school district appealed, and asked for an injunction while they decided to take the case under review, or NOT. if they dont, the lower court ruling will be in effect after they say no, if they DO take it under review, the injunction might continue until it is decided on.

    this is NOT a reversal of the decision, at least not yet. and with previous rulings i am think it is probably 80-90% going to go his way, NOT the schools.

  11. This is like going back to the days of Hitler. What next, assasinations, gender cleansing? Way to go America you truly suck!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here