He said that he was embarrassed to have to use the nurse room, the private bathroom and the girls' room. Having to use out-of-the way bathrooms also severely affected my education. Trans youth should be able to go to the toilet in peace, without being shamed or humiliated by their school boards and elected officials.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm twice and ruled that the policy was unconstitutional under Section 14 of the Equal Protection Clause. The court also ruled that students cannot use the bathroom that is compatible with their gender identity because Title IX, an education law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, violates Title IX.The case has been bouncing around the courts for several years through a political tug-of-war over Title IX interpretation. In 2016, the court supported Grimm, and in August last year. After the Trump administration shattered Obama's guidance regarding transgender students, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the case in 2017. However, it remanded the case to the lower courts.In June, the Education Department announced a new interpretation of Title IX that includes discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. This decision was based upon the landmark Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision. The opinion on transgender rights at work stated that it didn't address the rights to use locker rooms or bathrooms.The Supreme Court has ruled that a lawsuit against a school district in Oregon that sought to bar transgender students accessing locker rooms and bathrooms that are compatible with their gender identity is now closed. The high court ruled not to hear the case in December. It was aimed at ending a policy by an Oregon school district that allowed transgender students to use facilities that were compatible with their gender identity.According to the court order, Justices Clarence Thomas (and Samuel Alito) would grant Grimm's petition for a certificate of merit. Bostock was voted down by Alito and Thomas.The justices warned in their dissent that the decision by the high courts to interpret sex discrimination as including discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity was likely to have wide-reaching implications.The Supreme Court's decision not to overturn the ruling of the lower court is seen as a significant victory for transgender student right, particularly as many conservative states have passed laws challenging them."This is a huge victory for Gavin as well as for transgender students across the country," Josh Block, senior staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ & HIV Project said. "Our work isn't over, and the ACLU continues to fight for anti-trans laws in all 50 states.
