May I Use The Restroom? The Supreme Court’s Likely Opportunity to Define “Sex” in Title IX and End the Transgender Bathroom Debate

Kaleb Degler
{"title":"May I Use The Restroom? The Supreme Court’s Likely Opportunity to Define “Sex” in Title IX and End the Transgender Bathroom Debate","authors":"Kaleb Degler","doi":"10.25172/smulr.75.4.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock, which established that “sex” under Title VII includes gender identity and sexual orientation, now protects LGBTQ+ persons from discrimination in the workplace. However, this interpretation of “sex” was not subsequently applied wholesale to “sex” under Title IX, leaving many LGBTQ+ students—particularly transgender students—subject to the fate of where they were born and the shifting tides of the federal executive. Beginning with the Obama Administration, a history of conflicting guidance and opinion letters has dominated the discussion on whether transgender students are allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. In 2020, the Fourth Circuit in Grimm interpreted “sex” under Title IX as including gender identity and sexual orientation, thereby establishing the right of transgender students to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The same year, the Eleventh Circuit reached an identical conclusion. However, the Eleventh Circuit subsequently vacated this opinion and granted a rehearing, suggesting that it will likely reach the opposite conclusion on rehearing. The Supreme Court could soon find itself in a position to settle a circuit split between the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits and should grant certiorari to uphold the rights of transgender students, regardless of what circuit jurisdiction they may live in or who the president may be.","PeriodicalId":80169,"journal":{"name":"SMU law review : a publication of Southern Methodist University School of Law","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SMU law review : a publication of Southern Methodist University School of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25172/smulr.75.4.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock, which established that “sex” under Title VII includes gender identity and sexual orientation, now protects LGBTQ+ persons from discrimination in the workplace. However, this interpretation of “sex” was not subsequently applied wholesale to “sex” under Title IX, leaving many LGBTQ+ students—particularly transgender students—subject to the fate of where they were born and the shifting tides of the federal executive. Beginning with the Obama Administration, a history of conflicting guidance and opinion letters has dominated the discussion on whether transgender students are allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. In 2020, the Fourth Circuit in Grimm interpreted “sex” under Title IX as including gender identity and sexual orientation, thereby establishing the right of transgender students to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The same year, the Eleventh Circuit reached an identical conclusion. However, the Eleventh Circuit subsequently vacated this opinion and granted a rehearing, suggesting that it will likely reach the opposite conclusion on rehearing. The Supreme Court could soon find itself in a position to settle a circuit split between the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits and should grant certiorari to uphold the rights of transgender students, regardless of what circuit jurisdiction they may live in or who the president may be.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我可以用一下洗手间吗?最高法院可能有机会在第九条中定义“性别”,并结束跨性别厕所的辩论
最高法院在博斯托克案中做出的具有里程碑意义的裁决,确立了第七章中的“性”包括性别认同和性取向,现在保护了LGBTQ+人群在工作场所不受歧视。然而,这种对“性”的解释后来并没有完全适用于第九条下的“性”,这使得许多LGBTQ+学生——尤其是跨性别学生——受制于他们的出生地和联邦行政部门的变化趋势。从奥巴马政府开始,关于是否允许跨性别学生使用符合其性别认同的洗手间的讨论,一直充斥着相互矛盾的指导意见和意见书。2020年,第四巡回法院在格林一案中将第九条中的“性”解释为包括性别认同和性取向,从而确立了跨性别学生使用与其性别认同相对应的洗手间的权利。同年,第十一巡回法院也得出了相同的结论。然而,第十一巡回法院随后撤销了这一意见,并批准了重审,这表明重审可能会得出相反的结论。最高法院可能很快就会发现自己处于解决第四巡回法院和第十一巡回法院之间的巡回法院分歧的位置,并且应该批准调卷令,以维护跨性别学生的权利,而不管他们可能居住在哪个巡回法院辖区,也不管总统是谁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy Risk and Coerced Interventions after Dobbs Using a “Bystander Bounty” to Encourage the Reporting of Workplace Sexual Harassment A Tribute for Professor Lowe The Promise of Abortion Pills: Evidence on the Safety and Effectiveness of Self-Managed Medication Abortion and Opportunities to Expand Access Fracture: Abortion Law and Politics After Dobbs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1