Published on January 17, 2024, 12:08 am

The U.S Supreme Court took a step back from intervening in a significant case on Tuesday, choosing not to review an instance involving a student identifying as transgender who was forbidden from using the boy’s restroom in her school. This ruling is a disappointement for the central Indiana school district, which turns out to be at the helm of this dispute. In choosing to stand by and observe, the most prominent court in the nation essentially sanctions the verdict given by an inferior court, which supported the standpoint of the transgender student.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana legally backed this student, who pursued litigation against her school system—the Metropolitan School District—located within Indianapolis. The lawsuit was filed originally in 2021.

In accordance with court documents, this student—colloquially named A.C.—attended John R. Wooden Middle School belonging to said district. Despite her identification as male, she had been denied access to use both boys’ restroom and locker room facilities along with her peers.

Instead, A.C. was compelled either to utilize restrooms meant for girls or confine herself to single-person restrooms typically located inside a nurse’s office—a location significantly distanced away from her daily classes—as it was alleged by ACLU. Tracing these events led her parents along with ACLU representatives effectively arguing that such circumstances impacted irreparable distress upon their child.

Staff within the school contribute further tension by referring back to A.C.’s biological sex when alluding to her although objections were posited indeed by both her mother and stepfather according to court records related to this affair.

A federal court made strides towards addressing this situation in April 2022 through granting A.C., alongside her family members, preliminary injunction—a legal remedy providing temporary relief for parties involved during lawsuits.

Ascending above its singular entity, this scenario ultimately was fused together forming a triad of similar cases involving girls expressing their identity as transgender who undertook analogous steps through litigating their own Indiana public education districts in contention over restroom usage. All three girls among these incidents have revised their birth certificates thereby stating male identification.

By August, a triad of judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago decided that since these trio of students recognizing themselves as transgender “are considered boys by the state of Indiana” then it would conflict with existing state laws if districts insisted they use facilities designated for females. With Supreme Court choosing to refrain from reviewing this case, the original ruling from the 7th Circuit is upheld without interference or repercussion.

Going on to consider reactions towards this decision, representatives for Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita—who advocated in favor of the respective school district—expressed disappointment regarding Supreme Court’s chosen path claiming that they’ve neglected what could serve as a pivotal opportunity to contribute clarity within such hazy matters.

They argued that schools would be compelled legally now adopting an attitude allowing those transgender students to select washrooms aligning with whichever gender they identify with currently. Despite current circumstances however there is confirmation that related battles would remain ongoing so conventional parents from the Hoosier State can bring up children free from what is described as toxic transanity.

In recent years it’s been noted how court systems seem hesitant getting involved with cases centered around individuals identifying as transgender. There have been declined opportunities where intervention could’ve taken place: another restroom dispute, denial-of-hormones meant for cross-sex transition within jail settings and resistance against imposing ban upon athletes identifying as transgender in West Virginia were some prominent examples.

It seems pertinent adding that legislation across different states either already has or is debating policy restrictions upon K-12 students appearing as transgender restricting them accessing restrooms belonging to opposite sex contrary to their biological one while efforts introducing comparable laws within Indiana were stalled repeatedly by Democrats.