Transgender student's battle divides rural Virginia town

[traci_k]

Transgender student's battle divides rural Virginia town

http://news.yahoo.com/transgender-students-battle-divides-rural-virginia-town-091418859.html;_ylt=A0LEVilyqPpVj_0ApjwnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

AP via Yahoo News
By LARRY O'DELL
Sept 17, 2015

GLOUCESTER, Va. (AP) — Amid the cornfields and marinas dotting this conservative tidewater Virginia enclave between the York River and Mobjack Bay, people are divided over what one local pastor calls "the civil rights issue of this generation" — how to deal with a transgender student's demand to use the boys' restrooms at the local high school.
**********************************
Why is this still being argued? I thought DOE or whoever said this was covered under Title IX, that the children should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify. Yes, I know it wasn't a ruling but I believe a friend of the court brief, but giving that as the Federal Government's position.

[Asche]

Why is this still being argued? I thought DOE or whoever said this was covered under Title IX, that the children should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify. Yes, I know it wasn't a ruling but I believe a friend of the court brief, but giving that as the Federal Government's position.

I believe it's still in federal district court.  The judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction to force the district to allow him to use the bathroom.

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/judge-denies-transgender-students-request-to-use-boys-bathroom/2015/09/04/c3516238-534d-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

I haven't read that it went to trial, so there's nothing to appeal yet.

It's entirely possible that the judge will rule in the student's favor when it does go to trial.  Even if the judge thinks the student has a slam-dunk case, he won't issue a preliminary injunction unless he thinks that the student will suffer "irreparable harm" if he has to wait for the case to finish.  See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction

[suzifrommd]

It's entirely possible that the judge will rule in the student's favor when it does go to trial.

I think that's extremely unlikely. I think it is far more likely the judge will rule that the trans boy is actually a girl, and that we are all, legally at least, members of our sex assigned at birth. I think this may be a disastrous case for our community.

Please read https://www.susans.org/2015/09/14/grave-legal-danger-will-the-grimm-case-be-our-plessy/ if you want to know why I think so.

I thought DOE or whoever said this was covered under Title IX, that the children should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify

The judge in that case has already ruled that Title IX allows gender segregated washrooms, and that for the purposes of that law, transgender boys are female. Title IX is no longer a part of the case.

[IdontEven]

So I know almost nothing about our legal system, so I've got a few basic questions here.

When the judge is so obviously biased (being trans is a mental illness, really judge?), is there any hope in dropping the case and waiting for a similar case elsewhere, or does it end up on this guy's desk eventually?

Any chance you could force him to recuse himself? I mean he's basically already said he's made up his mind, he's pre-judged the case, he's prejudiced as in literal definition.

If/when he rules unfavorably can it be appealed to a higher court?

If this stands as precedent, does it invalidate any future laws that are passed granting LGBT protections, or would new laws that pass invalidate the case?

[Asche]

It's entirely possible that the judge will rule in the student's favor when it does go to trial.

I think that's extremely unlikely. I think it is far more likely the judge will rule that the trans boy is actually a girl, and that we are all, legally at least, members of our sex assigned at birth.

You're probably right about this judge.  My only point was that, from a legal point of view, it would be entirely consistent to deny the preliminary injunction and yet decide for the student in the end.  E.g., if a judge (probably not this one) believed that the student was right, but that he wouldn't suffer "irreparable harm" if he had to continue to use the girl's toilet until the trial was over.

I think this may be a disastrous case for our community.

Please read https://www.susans.org/2015/09/14/grave-legal-danger-will-the-grimm-case-be-our-plessy/ if you want to know why I think so.

I read that.

However, it will only be our Plessy vs. Ferguson if it gets to the US Supreme Court and they decide against the student.  This is the lowest level of US court.  I assume that if the judge decides as you believe, the case will be appealed.  If I recall correctly what I learned in Government class 45 years ago, there's at least two levels of appeal: US Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court.  Either of them could reverse the district court's decision.

It's well known that there are a fair number of jackasses at the district level.  I would be more worried if the case goes against the student at the Appeals Court level, although it would depend upon the court's reasoning.

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), but my uneducated guess is that if the judge refuses to listen to the Amicus Curiae brief, or fails to take it into consideration in his decision, he would seriously risk at least having the case thrown back to him with an instruction to take it into account.

tl;dr -- it ain't over 'til it's over, and it ain't anywhere near over.

[Asche]

Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL), nor do I play one on TV.

When the judge is so obviously biased (being trans is a mental illness, really judge?), is there any hope in dropping the case and waiting for a similar case elsewhere, or does it end up on this guy's desk eventually?

Any chance you could force him to recuse himself? I mean he's basically already said he's made up his mind, he's pre-judged the case, he's prejudiced as in literal definition.

I don't think disagreeing with one side in a case counts as "bias", for legal purposes.

Since both plaintif and defendant are in this court's district, I can't see it being handled by a different district.  I don't know if US district courts have more than one judge.  But in any case,

If/when he rules unfavorably can it be appealed to a higher court?

Absolutely.  US Court of Appeals, and if either side doesn't like what they decide, then the US Supreme Court (assuming they accept the case -- they often don't.)

If this stands as precedent, does it invalidate any future laws that are passed granting LGBT protections, or would new laws that pass invalidate the case?

This is a district court.  It doesn't have precedential value outside the district, and maybe not even within the district.

For a decision to invalidate a law, the court would have to invoke some higher-level law -- for statutes, it's usually, the US constitution, although sometimes federal statutes or US treaties can invalidate state laws.