Supreme Court to School: Trans Student Must Use Correct Bathroom

128

The Supreme Court, perhaps signaling that they will take up the issue of President Obama’s transgender directive in the next term, blocked a lower court’s ruling this week regarding a transgender student in southeastern Virginia.

A trial judge has ordered Gloucester High School to allow transgender senior Gavin Grimm to use the boys’ bathroom, despite the fact that Grimm was born female. The Supreme Court’s ruling temporarily puts that ruling on hold, meaning that Grimm will either have to use the girls’ facilities or a private bathroom until such time that the case can be addressed in Washington.

The vote was 5-3; liberal Justice Stephen Breyer joined the conservatives “as a courtesy,” according to the New York Times.

The court’s ruling will not affect any other case, but it could indicate a willingness on the part of the Supreme Court to fully address the Justice Department’s directive from May, requiring all public schools to let transgender students to use the bathroom facilities that correspond to their “gender identity.” That directive has come under fierce attack from conservatives who say it would not only endanger students and violate their right to privacy, but that it also exceeds the scope of executive power.

The Gloucester school board has vowed to petition the court later this month, and they hope to get a full ruling from the court in the near future.

And once again, we are reminded of what’s really at stake in this year’s presidential election.

Beyond the day-to-day drama of this election season, there are serious issues that will be decided this November. One of the most serious will be the replacement of the late Antonin Scalia, whose conservative seat remains vacant while Senate Republicans keep Obama’s pick – Merrick Garland – sitting on the sidelines. Garland’s not the most liberal judge the president could have chosen, but he would almost certainly vote alongside the Supreme Court’s leftist gang: Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan. The latter three dissented in this very case.

If elected, Hillary Clinton may stick with Garland or she may choose someone with an even stronger history of liberal judicial activism. Worse, she may have the opportunity to replace several other judges by the time her first term is complete. Clinton has already said that she will be looking for judges who oppose Citizens United and support “women’s health.” We all know what that means.

Even with a (debatably) conservative majority, the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last year. With liberals in charge, is there any doubt as to how they’ll rule on Obama’s transgender directive?